Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-10-05TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of September 24 -October 5, 2012 Tiburon 1. None Aizendas & Minutes 2. Minutes - Design Review Board - September 6, 2012 3. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - October 4, 2012 4. Agenda - Building Code Appeals Board - October 11, 2012 5. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - October 10, 2012 Regional o- a) Meeting Cancellation - Reg. Airport Planning Committee - Sept. 18, 2012 b) Meeting Announcement - ABAG Fall General Assembly - October 18, 2012 c) Sierra Club Yodeler - October/November 2012* d) Open Doors - Fair Housing of Marin Newsletter - Fall 2012* e) Invitation- AIPAC - Pro-Israel Political Gathering - October 23, 2012* f) Comcast California - August 2012* g) Notice - Marin Conservation League - Move to 175 N. Redwood Drive, San Rafael h) Annual Report -TAM - 2011 i) Western City - October 2012 Agendas &Minutes j) Agenda - Marin County Open Space District - October 2, 2012 * Council Only MINUTES #13 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD' MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Emberson. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emberson, Vice-Chair Johnson, Boardmembers Chong, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Harper B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous reported that the application for 40 Delmar Drive was continued to October 4, 2012. He also stated that the appeals for 440 Ridge Road were heard at the previous night's Town Council meeting and their decision was to deny both appeals. He stated that the meeting for the September 20, 2012 DRB meeting has been canceled and the next DRB meeting will be held on October 4, 2012. D. 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 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 OCTOBER 4, 2012 2. 488 WASHINGTON COURT: File No. 21215; Clinton and Tina Yee, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct an addition to the front of the house and a second story addition to an existing single-story dwelling. 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 increase the lot coverage for the property by 1,054 square feet, resulting in lot coverage of 32.6% which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%). Assessor's Parcel No. 034-251-29. . At the July 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, the Board considered an application to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with a variance for reduced side yard setback, located at 488 Washington Court. During the meeting, neighbors located on both Washington and Irving Court objected to the proposed second story to the home, noting a loss of privacy and views, in addition to the proposed dwelling being significantly out of character with the Belveron Gardens neighborhood. The architect for the project acknowledged the concerns of the neighbors and agreed to work towards a solution to the concerns expressed. The Board appreciated the design of the structure but determined that the design did not fit well in a neighborhood that was predominately single-story dwellings. In addition, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 the Board suggested that the massing of the structure should be broken up, the terraces at the back of the home reduced or eliminated to maintain privacy between dwellings, and that a partial second story with a more sensitive design might be more acceptable. The Board acknowledged that a variance request to exceed lot coverage to maintain a single-story structure, in order to keep the dwelling consistent with the character of the neighborhood, might be granted. The Board continued the item to allow the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors and to revise the design of the home. The applicant has submitted revised plans now requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling. The proposal would expand the dwelling at the lower level and incorporate a new second story addition to the home. The proposed lower level would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, mudroom, laundry room, two bedrooms, one bathroom, and a two-car garage. The upper level would include the master bedroom suite, and an office/nursery room. As more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls would be demolished as part of the project, the application has been classified as a new single-family dwelling. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,752 square feet, which is one square foot less than the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,458 square feet (32.6%) which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%). The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage. Michael Heckmann, architect, stated they have considered the Board's comments to provide a more broken up design and to fit better into the neighborhood. He said that rather than having the security of children's bedrooms with the master bedroom, they have moved both children's bedrooms to the lower level. He said that they reduced the height of the building by 19 inches and worked to better articulate the elevations with a variety of gabled roofs that provide a better architectural effect. Mr. Heckmann said at the last meeting, neighbors still raised concerns and he had reached out to a number of them and spoke with Mr. Lewis and Mr. Chapman. He said that Mr. Lewis was not in a position for him to see the view issue from his home and Mr. Chapman was able to show him the view from his master suite. He recited Goal 3, Principle of the Design Review Guidelines which states that view protection is more important from primary living areas than secondary areas. He said that the views from both properties on Irving Court are from bedrooms and he asked the Board to keep this in mind when reviewing the exhibits. Mr. Heckmann distributed pictures of the house from the street showing the Chapman and Lewis residences and the view from the Chapman residence. He referred to the second photos from the Chapman residence, stating that there is a fairly wide view. He felt that the change relative to what the story poles and what the project entails was an acceptable compromise, given the fact that they have lowered the building. He said that there are also a number of trees between Irving Court and the project, many of which have grown in the last 20-50 years to compromise the views. He added that Mr. Lewis has sizable trees and pruning them would provide a better view than he has today. Mr. Heckmann indicated he also contacted Max Staley on Washington Court and spoke with him hoping that the height reduction would be an acceptable modification for them. He said that these are not significant impacts from their main living area, as they can see the project from their front yards, but from inside their homes and from the main parts of their house there would be minimal change to their view across the property to the south. Mr. Heckmann stated that Mr. Staley also owns the property to the east and he has mentioned there would be a privacy issue. He stated that they reduced the deck substantially and tucked it into the building so there are limited views to either one of the neighbors. Mr. Heckmann presented a photograph of all of the hedges that separate the two properties and he said even if they are on a deck at a master terrace and having an obscured, dense hedge it will not be possible to look into their yard. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 2 9/6/12 Mr. Heckmann stated that their current project would be 5.5 feet lower than the maximum allowed, only requests a lot coverage variance and would comply with all other zoning regulations. He said that the owners are anxious to get the project underway and move into their home. The public hearing was opened. Vicky Sodero said that she lives directly across the street from the project and said that the project would cast a shadow to the neighborhood and seemed very large. She understood that the property needs to be renovated, but she thought that there was a way to add a second story without it feeling on top of them. She said that it seemed like a lot of coverage and would be far too close to her house across the street. Michael La Torre said that he had no opposition to views, but was opposed to the house as too big and he hoped that the Board could reconsider the design, stating that it would fit elsewhere and not in this neighborhood. Jerry Brezinski said that the existing setbacks and the height of the proposed house would seem like the Great Wall of China impacting him. He felt that a second story would not fit into the neighborhood. He said that the back deck would look into his backyard which would be an invasion of privacy, and this was not a proper place to put a second story on a house. He suggested remodeling the house as is or selling it and exchanging it for a different property to better suit the owners' needs. Owen Chapman said that Mr. Heckmann visited his property and noted that the previous design was much worse, but the new design would shift the second story over to the east and affect a large portion of his water view. He presented a photograph to the Board taken from his master bedroom showing the story poles which would remove a large portion of their water view. He felt that obstructing someone's view would have a negative economic impact, which he thought should have some bearing on the subject. He said that a design should respect more of those people living on Washington Court. Mack Staley said that the owners bought the least expensive house and want to design a monstrous home that does not belong in a neighborhood with all small houses. He spoke about the history of the Belveron neighborhood. He said that the house would block his views of the roadway and hills. He voiced opposition to any second story homes in their neighborhood, but was agreeable to second story homes on Irving Court. Jerry Lewis said that he lives on the north side against the hill and as he looks towards the bay, there is no second story anywhere in their view. He said that the reason he denied having the architect visit was because of his wife's medical issues, as their bedroom is her primary living and view area. He provided a history of their view and distributed photographs taken in 2007 where they could see Blackie's Pasture in full. However, he said that the construction of the 1.5 story home at 493 Washington Court entirely eliminated their view of Blackie's Pasture. He said that the story poles for the new proposal would take out 1/3 to 1/2 of their view of Sausalito. He said that he spends over 51,000 a year trimming trees on Washington Street in order to preserve views. Lastly, he pointed out that the story poles were now more centered in their view. Mr. Heckmann said that he was still trying to understand the extent of the impact from the view on Irving Court. He found it difficult to understand the pictures from Mr. Chapman and Mr. Lewis. He stated that they have lowered the building, moved the bedrooms to the lower floor and, created a more articulated house. He felt that there should be a spirit of compromise for everybody and asked that the Board discuss options to find an acceptable solution. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 Chair Emberson questioned and confirmed that the plate height in the master bedroom would be 9 feet. Mr. Heckmann stated that they could make that 8' or even 7'6" which would reduce the height of the building 1.5 feet. He said that they could also remove the front and rear clerestory windows, remove the gabled element over the stairway, and the south facing roof could be tucked on the door and window openings. He said that this would work to meet the neighbor's concerns and change the scale of the project. He did not feel that changing the length of the building would be a major improvement, as the issue seem to be mainly about the height. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said that the view impacts are important, but did not prioritize them because he thought the massing was more important. In looking through the minutes, he questioned whether the Board made clear enough at the last meeting the effects of a second story for this lot. He said that a small pop-up addition might reduce the impact of the second story and would be the only possible two-story solution. He said that the mass had not been reduced and the DRB had not allowed this in either of the Belveron neighborhoods and he did not think it was appropriate. He said that the mass would be inconsistent with the neighborhood or what has been allowed in other parts of the neighborhood. He felt that there was still a significant rear yard that could be used for some additional square footage. He said that this much building mass was unacceptable. Vice Chair Johnson agreed. He thought that the DRB was clear about the scale and the massing of the building and said that this building would not fit in the neighborhood. Boardmember Chong quoted the zoning ordinance design principle that "neighborhoods consisting primarily of one story homes, second story additions shall be discouraged or permitted with increased setbacks where the design features minimize intrusion on the neighborhood." He did not think that this design would minimize such an intrusion. He understood why the applicant desired to add up given the water views. He noted that he did not have a problem with the two-story design at 105 Jefferson Drive, but this project was different, as the other project had significant trees and this project felt more massive. He said that he visited the property in the late afternoon and the story poles cast full shadows on the house next to it. He said that he liked the design of the house if it was on a half-acre lot with a nice grassy lawn in the front, but it does not fit well in a predominantly one-story neighborhood. Boardmember Tollini concurred with what had been said and believed that the request was somewhat aggressive. He said that the view impacts were important and real, but were secondary to the relationship of the house to the neighborhood and the mass. He agreed that the house did not work in this location. Within the immediate vicinity, he thought that the house was too big and if a second story would work at all, it would have to be substantially smaller. He acknowledged that such applications have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but given that he still could not support the proposal. He was surprised to read in the minutes that there was some potential support for a second story, and said that he would struggle to get behind a second story in this location at all. He said that this was a reasonably sized lot and he thought that he could support a lot coverage variance to permit more floor area. Chair Emberson agreed and thought that the Board might not have been clear enough the first time. She wondered if the Board could support a second story unless it was something like the one on Irving Court. She wanted to send the architect back with clear direction. Boardmembers Chong and Tollini stated that they were not behind any second story proposal. Mr. Watrous noted that the Permit Streamlining Act deadline for this project was approaching and that the applicant would need to verbally agree to a 90 day extension to allow a continuance to a further meeting. Mr. Heckmann said he would agree to the 90-day extension. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 4 9/6/12 Vice Chair Johnson thought it was possible to add a partial upper story given there were good examples in this area. However, he noted that the bedroom, bathroom and closet were 600 square feet not including the office/nursery storage, etc., and while this could be scaled down and inade to work and he was not 100% opposed to a two-story, he was opposed to this plan. Boardmember Kricensky agreed that there was a way to add a small second story that would not impact the neighbors on the side and there are other examples in the neighborhood that have been done sensitively. Chair Emberson noted the amount of space in the rear yard and leaned toward a one-story design because that is predominantly what is in the neighborhood. Vice Chair Johnson said that the lot might be too small for what the owners need. Boardmember Tollini agreed with the direction and thought that the project could be accommodated using a single story and although the applicant was more than welcome to try and bring back another second story plan and it may work, it would be an uphill battle. Chair Emberson said that if the project returned as a one story building the Board could get behind it a lot easier. Mr. Heckmann said it sounded like the second story needs to be scaled way down to have a better relationship with the neighborhood and that the Board prefers a single story solution. ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Tollini) to continue the application for 488 Washington Court to October 41 2012. Vote: 5-0. Noted Absent/Excused: Boardmember Tollini was excused from the meeting at 8:02 p.m. 3. 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 4,881 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. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 1865 Mountain View Drive. This application was first reviewed at the August 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the owners of adjacent home to the west at 1855 Mountain View Drive raised objections to the potential view impacts caused by the proposed house. The owners of the house on the other side of the property at 1875 Mountain View Drive also raised concerns about the proximity of the new building to their residence. The Design Review Board did not necessarily agree about the severity of the potential view and proximity concerns, but felt that it was difficult to support a floor area exception for a new house that had the potential for such concerns, particularly when there were design alternatives that could address these issues. The Board continued the application to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed house. The upper level closest to 1855 Mountain View Drive has been moved back 4 feet further from the side property line and 6 feet further from the front. The lower level in this location has been moved back 18 inches. The side of the house facing 1875 Mountain View Drive has been modified to move the house back 9 inches further from the side property line. The master bedroom suite on the upper level has been moved back 2 feet, 8 inches TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 further from the front property line and one foot further from the front property line. The number and size of the windows proposed for this side of the house have been reduced. The stepped design of the house would increase the lot coverage from the previous total of 3,151 square feet (14.7%) of the site to 3,190 square feet (14.9%) of the site, which would still be less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. The calculated floor area of the project has been reduced by 170 square feet from 4,811 square feet to 4,641 square feet, which would now exceed the 4,147 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 494 square feet. A floor area exception is therefore still requested. David Holscher, architect, described the changes made since the last meeting, including the changes to the views from the Kahn's residence. He said that they made other changes to the design and windows to address the other neighbors' privacy concerns. He said that the house would have significantly less lot coverage with a 494 square foot floor area exception and would now be more consistent with the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. Dr. Johannes Beha stated that the front of the new design would still be closer to the street than the existing house. He asked that the house be moved back3 to 4 feet to the original wall of the house. He stated that this design would violate CEQA because the maximum permitted lot coverage would be exceeded quite a bit. He asked that the Board not allow this because he assumed that when he bought his home, the zoning rules would be strictly kept. He felt that the proposal would be a monstrous house compared to others in the neighborhood. Phoebe Holscher, architect, said that the new house would be closer to the street but would be well behind the front yard setback and further from the street than the Babu's house next door. She said that the house would comply with all the setbacks there would be landscaping in the front yard, and they have pulled the house into the hill. Therefore, she felt that the house would be absolutely, consistent with the neighborhood. She was not sure about the CEQA issue as the house would not exceed the lot coverage allowance. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Chong said that he went back to the site and viewed the revised story poles and the revised design did a tremendous job of opening up views of the Transamerica building and Angel Island, and this was much more of his concern than the privacy next door. He voiced appreciation for the applicant's bullet points outlining all of the changes. He said that this project underscored how well the design review process works when the architect works with the neighbors and makes changes. He said that the house would be well within the setbacks and would not impact the street view, and he appreciated the neighbors' emailed support of it. Vice Chair Johnson agreed and noted that the building would set back 47+ feet from the street. He said that the design was in keeping with that neighborhood, and he said he can support the exception as well. He commended the architect for taking feedback and addressing all issues. Boardmember Kricensky agreed. He wished it would be this easy for applicants when they return with changes. He said that they addressed all the issues. He said that the view impacts were improved and the project would be under the lot coverage allowed. He agreed with the findings for the floor area exception and thought that the house would be consistent with other homes in the area. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 Chair Emberson agreed with all comments. She noted that the setbacks were within what is prescribed in the zoning ordinance. She liked the massing and articulation and thought that it fit well with the neighborhood. She said that she can make the findings that the visual size and scale were in keeping with the neighborhood and that the applicant had demonstrated that the structure would be compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality and approving the application, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 4. 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. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with a variance for excess lot coverage, on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The proposed additions would expand the dwelling at the right side and the rear of the home. With the proposed additions, the remodeled and expanded dwelling would include a living/dining room, kitchen, an expanded family room, a master bedroom suite, three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a two-car garage. The front entry porch would also be reconstructed. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,337 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (2,788 sq. ft.). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,804 square feet (35.6%) which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%). The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Frate, architect, said his client would like to extend his rear yard bedroom into a master suite and described the project design. He said that they propose a new roof while matching the existing roof slope and they chose a sloping hip style roof to keep massing low and have less vertical impact on the neighboring yards. He said that the neighborhood has communicated they like low mass, single-story homes, and for that reason they are not proposing a second floor. In order to do this, they requested a lot coverage variance. He felt that the updated house would respect the neighborhood's wishes and achieve the goals of the project. Regarding the neighbor at 5 Apollo Road, they agreed to survey and find the rear property line to ensure the construction stays within the setbacks, and they can also adjust the rear yard fence as needed. Jeff Boris said that he had a slight concern on the privacy issue because his property is so close to the wall of the addition which would move 5 feet towards him. He noted that they would also have an additional door on the south facing wall, and sliding doors in the back of the room. He therefore questioned whether the new door was needed. He said that the roof would block their view of the hillside a bit so he asked to lower it 1 to 2 feet to make a difference in their dining room. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 Mr. Frate stated that he did not have an opportunity to talk with Mr. Boris. He said that the proposed door would be a pedestrian door near the kitchen. He said that if they have outdoor activities, they can go out the side door into the patio. He said that the sliding glass door is at the other end of the family room and the new door was really for convenience. He did not see where the roof would block any view, stating that the roof would be 3 feet above the existing ridge, Mr. Boris's house is lower, and there are many trees. He also checked the sun angles and the neighbor's house faces north and most shadows go toward their rear yard. Chair Emberson asked and confirmed that the plate height would be 8 feet. Mr. Frate stated that the reason the roof would be slightly higher is because the bay window in the back would be wider than the original bay window in the front, and this is why they used a triangular roof to connect to the existing roof. He said that he used all hip roofs and would take gables away which will make it lower. Boardmember Chong asked what would be involved in lowering the roof height. Mr. Frate said that he was trying to match the existing 5:12 roof and if he used a different pitch, he would have problems with the construction. He added that the ridge would be dead center on most of the lot and it would not produce the bulk the neighbor thinks it would. Boardmember Chong said the story pole he saw was in the center, and he asked if the ridge height would extend out to the rear of the building. Mr. Freight said that the highest peak would be 8 feet back from the existing ridge. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Johnson thought that the application as proposed was perfectly acceptable and he had no issues with it. He said that the changes to the roof to address the height issues would be a mess, and he thought that the new door was set back well from the property line. He said that he could support the project as designed. Boardmember Kricensky voiced support as well. He visited the site and said that they have been good about keeping it one story, and it would be difficult to reduce the roof height, keeping the roof pitch. He said that the story pole is a little deceiving because everything in the roof would converge up to it, and it would sit in the middle of the roof. He thought that this was a good compromise that would not affect the neighbors. He said he was not sure about the door off the kitchen, but thought that it would be set back from the property line. Boardmember Chong viewed the project as a responsible one-story design. Knowing that the story pole does not extend all the way out and there is a drop made him feel more comfortable. He said that the new door would be clearly secondary and not used as much as the other sliding door. He visited the site and saw the impact from two doors down at 5 Apollo Road, and he supported the application. Chair Emberson concurred with Boardmember Chong's comments and voiced her support of the project. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the application, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 1877 CENTRO WEST STREET: File No. 712072; Steven and Jennifer Lamer, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to convert existing basement and mechanical space into a media room, bathroom, storage room and foyer and construct additional TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 storage and mechanical space. The floor area of the house would be increased by 350 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 4,698 square feet, which would be 1,677 square feet larger than the 3,021 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-071-16. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three- story single-family dwelling on property located at 1877 Centro West Street. The project would convert 186 square feet of previously approved basement space and convert existing mechanical room space into a media room, bathroom, storage room and foyer on the first floor of the house. A new exterior storage closet would be added to the west (left) side of the house and a new exterior elevator equipment room would be attached to the east (right) side of the building. The project would increase the lot coverage on the site by 44 square feet to 2,219 square feet (20.9%), which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The calculated floor area of the house would increase by 350 square feet to 4,698 square feet, which would exceed the 3,021 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 1,677 square feet. A floor area exception is therefore requested. Mark Groody, project designer, said they are asking for a floor area exception for a few areas that are underground and cannot be seen, as well as a small storage room on the side of the home. He said that this would help them create support for the balcony porch that was originally approved. He said that the landscape plan included a 6.5' storage room, which meant they would have a structure on it to hold up the porch. Therefore, they wanted to raise the roof inside to give more head room for storage and take care of the mass there. Mr. Groody said that early on, they excavated for retaining walls and there was a lot of sloughing dirt. He stated that the engineer said that instead of having the original step down wall, he suggested going all the way down and across which created a full height area to the back that they could incorporate into the main house. Mr. Groody stated that the front section was originally the mechanical room and they decided to move the equipment to the existing sheds in the back of the house, which opened up the area. He said that they proposed to maintain some storage space but create a small bath and foyer for people who will use the pool. He presented a small scale landscape plan and said that the view was negligible. Mr. Groody said that it had taken a long time to build a house under a house. He said that the neighbors signed off on all changes. He said that the mechanical room was increased, as the elevator contractor recommended that instead of having massive hydraulics in the basement, to put the mechanical system on top alongside the elevator shaft. Therefore, they popped the area out to create the space. Mr. Groody said that they are asking for more than is typically allowed, but he asked the Board to consider that they are within the building envelope and that they are converting space that already exists into another use from just concrete floor to sheetrock walls and finished floors. The public hearing was opened and there were no public comments. ` Boardmember Chong asked why this application was referred to the Board. Mr. Watrous said the reason it came before the Board is because the Town's general policy is to refer such projects after a certain number of changes. Vice Chair Johnson said he was not on the Board for the first three approvals and would have to defer to the guidance of staff in understanding the General Plan. He did not think there was much of an impact but in terms of scale of the structure and the neighboring homes, and looking at the amount of the floor area TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 9/6/12 exception and the process of adding a variety of square footage over the years, it left him in an undecided position. Boardmember Chong said that he struggled because he was on the Board and heard the whole genesis for the underground portion connecting the garage to the house which seemed to make a lot of sense and it would not impact the massing of the house. He said that the Board often dealt with homes built in the 70's which were remodeled it in the 80's and now wish to convert basement space into living space. He said that in this case it is an active project and he thought that the Board should look seriously at what has been approved. While part of him wanted to approve it because there would be no impacts, he noted that staff has seen more of these over the years and can provide guidance. He noted that the project was not just a little over the FAR, but 1600 square feet over, which is almost the size of an entire home. Although much of what was proposed is underground, he tended to lean on staff s recommendation. Boardmember Kricensky said that there was no clear answer for him. He asked whether this was an abnormal percentage over on the floor area compared to other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Watrous said that there are a handful of houses in the neighborhood which are substantially over their FAR. He noted that some of them predate the floor area ratio regulation, but this would not be a unique situation. Boardmember Kricensky asked if Boardmember Chong would have approved the currently requested 350 square feet if it were added in the past. Boardmember Chong said that he remembered how the Board approved a total of 4,000 square feet, and it now is over 600 square feet more since then. However, he noted that the Board has approved larger FAR's in the neighborhood with tighter building lots. Vice Chair Johnson said the original approval was for 1,200 square feet and in adding the 677 square feet, it would have been another 50% which would have changed the nature of the process. He thought that it was really about the principle in looking at what staff has presented. Boardmember Kricensky said that the other question is, from the explanation that the designer gave, during construction the area magically appeared. He asked if they were stepping the foundation and then they realized this. Mr. Groody said that they originally went to staff with a plan with this footprint that had an 8 foot ceiling and created it by bringing the side walls down and across. He said that the perimeter of that room had always been in place. He said that during construction, they met on site with the engineer and grading contractor and determined if would be better to build in an "L" wall that was not broken up with little steps because they would have had to bring back in fill and road base and have it meet the requirements for compaction. He described how the project could be changed to comply with the approved plans and the location of the previous mechanical equipment spaces. He said that these two empty spaces can remain empty or can be utilized some way and incorporated into the house. He said that they wanted to have the bathroom in there so people would not have to walk through the floors from the pool. He said that they were truly appealing to the Board to look at it not for what it would do to the rules and the numbers but how it would have no visual impact. He said that the rooms are there so there is no additional construction to create them. He said that their target was to finish no later than Thanksgiving. Boardmember Kricensky said that it is a question of either saying that the room is there and use it versus the projects the Board has previously seen where applicants maximize square footage and then want to use the space that was previously crawl space. He thought that this space was legitimately there and it would not be a heavy use. His inclination was to support the project and floor area exception. Chair Emberson agreed with Vice Chair Johnson. She said that the applicants have returned over and over and already have 1,000 square feet over what they are allowed and they are now infilling more. In her mind, the applicant should return with a project more in conformance. She said that the house was lovely TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 10 9/6/12 as is and she thought that the size was creeping up. She said that there was a reason staff brought up these issues and she could not make the findings for the exception. Boardmember Chong asked if the Board wished to look at the individual project components and voice their support or lack thereof. Vice Chair Johnson indicated that bathroom would be within the existing structure. He asked and confirmed with Mr. Groody that the elevator had been in the design since the beginning. He asked why the mechanical space needed to grow. Mr. Groody said that they needed more clearance in front to meet code and some additional components that were part of it. Chair Emberson said that an elevator addition was approved on April 2, 2010 and she asked why the Town did not approve the mechanical that went with it. Mr. Watrous said that the project plans did not appear to be thoughtfully designed to provide what was needed to build the house. Vice Chair Johnson agreed, as well as Chair Emberson. Boardmember Chong said that he could accept the double doors and the need for the elevator equipment. He asked if there was an architectural reason for the need for the west exterior closet. Mark Swanson, contractor, explained that the storage area was approved with a lower ceiling height, but they wanted to increase the ceiling height by not artificially lowering the ceiling. He said that there would be no impact, as this is all hidden. He said that the bulk of the floor area added was when they excavated for the tunnel and wine cellar below grade. He said that during the course of that construction it became apparent that it would be easier for access purposes to make the tunnel wider and put cabinets and storage, wheel chair access, etc. He said that he could lower the ceiling to 6'11 " and have it not count as floor area. Boardmember Chong said that he could approve everything except for the mechanical room converted to living space. Chair Emberson agreed. Mr. Watrous referred to Sheet A-1.0 and said there is a diagram on the right hand side; square footage by floor. He said the area discussed is the "B" area which is designated as mechanical. The rest could be approved except Area B to not be included. ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Chong) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the application, subject to the attached conditions of approval with the additional condition noting that the floor area shown on Sheet A-1.0 as Area B in the square footage diagrams by floor shall remain as mechanical room and shall not be approved as floor area. Vote: 4-0. 6. 4885 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 712097; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for installation of exterior HVAC equipment for an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to install five (5) air conditioning units adjacent to the exterior of the existing house. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-091-37. The applicant is requesting to install five (5) air conditioning (A/C) condenser units for the existing single-family dwelling located at 4885 Paradise Drive. Four (4) of the units are proposed on the north side of the dwelling, adjacent to an existing emergency generator. The remaining unit is proposed on the south side of the structure, adjacent to the garage. This application is being referred to the Design Review board as the number of HVAC units exceeds the maximum permitted for a single-family dwelling, as stated in the Tiburon Policy and Procedure for Standards for Air Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical Equipment. The public hearing was opened. Lionel Achuck said that he was requesting to install 5 air conditioning condenser units located 140 feet from the property line of his closest neighbor at 4883 Paradise. He said that his next closest neighbor's TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 11 9/6/12 property line is 170 feet away and there is significant landscaping and elevation difference that separates the homes. He referred to the last page of the plans which is an aerial photo showing the distances between homes. Mr. Achuck explained the reasons for the number of condenser units due to the layout of the home requiring more zones than typical since it is segmented into 4 distinct areas. He said that the HVAC system was engineered for maximum efficiency and sized accordingly, and the location of the units was selected based on availability of space surrounding the house as well as the physical conditions that assist in the reduction of noise transmission. He described the noise impact study prepared by an acoustical engineering firm to determine the maximum noise levels of the proposed units. He said that he then met with his nearest neighbor at 4883 Paradise and made several modifications, including a solid sound barrier in front of all of the units. He said that the end result was that they would come in below the Town's requirements for noise levels at the property lines. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said he did not get to the site because on a site this large and where the other homes are, but he could tell that the other homes are far away. He said that the house is divided into different zones which can actually be more energy efficient than trying to combine them and regulate rooms. He thinks the location of both units is the correct location, as well as the screening and area from neighbors. He voiced his support, especially given the energy efficiency of the design. Chair Emberson asked and confirmed with the applicant that the generator would be used for emergency purposes only because power goes out. She commented that the noise levels of 28 and 27 decibels are very low. Vice Chair Johnson supported approval and thought that the fact that the applicant has chosen more, yet smaller, units than what is required in the guideline with lower decibels was well thought out. Boardmember Chong said he visited the site and attested to the fact that it is far up on the hill. He said the only time he has seen a similar request for multiple HVAC units was for a house at the top of Gilmartin Drive that was right by the Ridge Trail and was very visible by anyone coming to the cul-de-sac. He said that this was clearly a different request and, given efficiency reasons, he could support it. Boardmember Kricensky asked how the Town checks the decibel levels. Mr. Watrous said that the Town relies on manufacturer specifications and the acoustical studies, as well, but does not check equipment after installation. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong//Johnson) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the application, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #12 OF THE AUGUST 16, 2012 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2012 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 12 9/6/12 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 y , Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Design Review Board October 4, 2012 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #14 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chair Emberson, Vice Chair Johnson and, Kricensky Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Tollini 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 with a Variance for Reduced Side Yard Setback and a Floor Area Exception. 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 2,3 71 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 5,343 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage space. The new garage would extend to within 4 feet, 7 inches of the northern side property line, which would be less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-211-29. Withdrawn 2. 488 WASHINGTON COURT: File No. 21215; Clinton and Tina Yee, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct additions to the main level of the house and a partial second story. 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 increase the lot coverage for the property by 1,238 square feet, resulting in lot coverage of 35.1 % which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%). Assessor's Parcel No. 034-251-29. Continued to 11/1/12 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 87 RANCHO DRIVE: File No. 21211; Terence Andrews, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review to legalize the as-built construction of additions to the existing detached studio, as-built construction of walls and fencing, and construction of new additions to the existing detached studio, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess fence height, and a Floor Area Exception. Approved as Amended 3-0 Design Review Board Action Minutes October 4, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of September 6, 2012 Approved as Amended 3-0 ADJOURNMENT At 9:50 PM Action Minutes #14 10/4/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Town Hall Community Room, 2°d Floor Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA Inaugural Meeting. Building Code Appeals Board October 11, 2012 - 3:00 PM BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD OATH OF OFFICE BY TOWN CLERK CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Boardmembers Swanson, Kallmeyer, Thompson, Clemons, Ostaggi ORIENTATION AND STAFF BRIEFING A. Introductions and Welcoming Remarks by Town Manager B. Overview of Board and Building Official Authorities by Town Attorney C. Review of Duties, etc., as set forth in Authorizing Resolution No. 34-2011 D. Conflict of Interest, Disclosure Policy, and Brown Act Compliance ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Building Code Appeals Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up may be referred to Town Staff or placed on a future agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. BUSINESS ITEM 1. ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS ADJOURNMENT Agenda - Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board October 11, 2012 Page 1 NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2012 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2012 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY DIGEST SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 California Street • Suite 2600 • San Francisco, California 94111 • (415) 352-3600 • Fax: (415) 352-3606 • www.bcdc.ca.gov Jr ~S .r' lc }~t~ .04 '00 i F3 r R ,ru i A a/ . September 18, 2012 The Regional Airport Planning Committee meeting scheduled for Friday, September 28, 2012 has been cancelled. The next regular Regional Airport Planning Committee Meeting will be on January 25, 2013 At the MetroCenter, 101 8th Street Oakland, California 9:30 a.m. to noon RECEIVE SEP 2 0 2w TOWN MANAGERS TOWN OF TIBURor, -44t l 4 Alukinq Sun Fruncimw Bad Bener bcdc OABAG w.N1on BAN PRANCISOO BAY AaSOCAAT10N CONSERVATION Of BAY AREA AND GOVERNMENTS DEVFIDPMENT COMM18MON Reg1or2a1 Airport Planning Corr.mittee September 18, 2012 TO: Regional Airport Planning Committee FROM: Staff of the Regional Airport Planning Committee SUBJECT: Work Plan Progress Report Summary. The following report provides an update of progress implementing RAPC's adopted work plan, since the May 14, 2012 RAPC meeting: 1. New RAPC members 2. Staffing changes 3. Next Gen Advocacy 4. Moffett Field Disposal 5. Runway Safety Areas RAPC Membership. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) appointed Mike Kasperzak, Mayor, Mountain View and Desley Brooks, Councilmember, Oakland to serve on RAPC, replacing committee members Sam Salmon and Mark Luce. Tom Bates is now Chair of RAPC. Staffing Changes. Several staff members working on the development and implementation of the Regional Airport Systems Plan Analysis have retired. Doug Kimsey, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Planning Director and Chris Brittle, MTC's Airport Planning Consultant (and former Planning Director) retired in July 2012. Ken Kirkey is now MTC's Planning Director and temporarily is staffing RAPC on behalf of MTC. Elisha Novak, the Federal Aviation Administration's staff representative on RAPC has retired, and the FAA will appoint a new representative soon. NextGen Advocacy. In the 2011 Regional Airport System Plan Analysis, RAPC identified Next Generation (NextGen) air traffic control technology implementation as a critical strategy for maximizing the efficient use of limited airfield capacity here in'the Bay Area. NextGen implementation and modernization of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) air traffic control system is essential for ensuring that the nation's busiest commercial airports can continue to serve air passengers and air cargo users without suffering gridlock in the sky. At an estimated cost of $40 billion, there are continuing concerns that appropriated levels for NextGen funding are falling short of what is needed, and this could lead to major new airport capacity and safety problems in the nation's air transportation system. Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter • 101 Eighth Street • Oakland, CA 94607-4700 510.817.5700 • TDDiTTY 510.817.5769 • FAX 510.817.5548 2 MTC issued a press release on August 16, 2012 announcing efforts to expand membership in the National Alliance to Advance NextGen (http:/ /www.mtc.ca.gov/news/). The MTC release coincided with a similar press releases by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (http: / /www.nicholaslence-com/our-team/joshua-knoller). This is the first step in getting more attention focused on the NextGen funding issues, which will be followed up by later efforts. This effort was Chris Brittle's last task as a consultant to MTC on aviation issues, and exemplified his professionalism and dedication to advancing regional aviation planning in the Bay Area. Moffett Field Disposal. Several South Bay newspapers reported in May 2012 that the US General Services Administration is likely to dispose of Moffett Field and Hangar One, making the airfield's future uncertain. However, NASA reported in May, that, "NASA has not moved to excess Moffett Federal Airfield or Hangar One. However, the agency is working closely with interested members of Congress and the General Services Administration (GSA) to evaluate the appropriate future stewardship of these properties. The local communities, federal, state and local agencies, local members and other interested parties would all play a key role in this process to determine how to maximize the benefit for all stakeholders. NASA is committed to a process that will best respect the airfield's current uses, the community's interest and the taxpayer's value." RAPC staff continues to track this evolving process, and will report to the RAPC at its next meeting _of any new developments. Runway Safety Areas. San Francisco International Airport temporarily closed Runway 28L, one of its two primary arrival runways, from Friday, June 1, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. PDT to 8:00 a.m. PDT on Monday, June 4, 2012. Runway 28R, as well as departure Runways 01L, and 01R remained open and operational throughout the closure period. During the closure, the arrival rate at SFO was reduced from 60 aircraft per hour to 30 aircraft per hour and delays, particularly for flights originating within two hours of SFO, were expected to occur during peak travel times. The construction is the first phase of the federally mandated Runway Safety Area project at SFO, which should be completed in the fall of 2014. The Port of Oakland proposes to implement a Runway Safety.Area (RSA) Improvement Project for Oakland International Airport to enhance the level of safety provided by RSAs at the Airport and comply with Federal Aviation Administration design, standards, as required, by December 31, 2015. The Port has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which were available for public review beginning March 20, 2012. The Port completed the environmental review process in August 2012, and is at 65% design with construction documents on South Field (Runway 11/29), slated to start in March 2013. The total project cost is in the range of $100 million and just received nearly $33 million in FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding for the current federal fiscal year. San Jose does not have a runway safety area project because SJC satisfies the FAA requirements through the "declared distance" concept that designates sections of runway pavement as being unavailable for departure or landing use. Next Meeting. The next RAPC Meeting will be held on January 25, 2013. BOARD OF DIRECTORS MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AGENDA Board of Supervisors Chambers Tuesday, October 2, 2012 Marin County Civic Center RECEIVED A. Approval of minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2012. OCT -1 2012 B. Board of Directors' matters. TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON' C. Open time for public expression, up to three minutes per speaker, on items not on the Open Space District Agenda. D. General Manager's report. E. Request to approve single source purchase of services from the Conservation Corps North Bay ("CCNB") for an amount not to exceed $75,000, for annual drain and fire fuel maintenance work. Recommended action: Approve F. Request to accept a $6,000 donation from the Seadrift Association for the Bolinas Lagoon tide gauge. Recommended action: Approve G. Request to authorize President to execute agreement with L Studio, in an amount not to exceed $20,700, for services related to implementation of the Marin County Parks Communication Plan. Recommended action: Approve H. Request to authorize President to execute agreements with Great Tree Tenders related to fire fuel work at the Camino Alto and Alto Bowl Open Space Preserves. Recommended action: Approve Adjourn as the Marin County Open Space District Board of Directors f SEE ME Elm woman Late agenda material can be inspected in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., at the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 329, San Rafael, CA. American Sign Language interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 499-6172 (TTY) or (415) (499-7331) (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon written request. The Board Agenda is available on the internet at ttp:/www.co.marin.ca.us/efiles/BS/AgMn/cybagnda.htm. The Board meeting is broadcast live over the Internet at http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Archive/Meetings.cfm OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEETING AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 2, 2012