Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Digest 2013-06-28
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of June 24 - 28, 2013 1. Notice of Reorganization - Tiburon Town Council 2. Notice of Election - General Municipal Election - November 5, 2013 3. Memo - Town Clerk Crane Iacopi - Information on November 5, 2013 Municipal Election Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes - Minutes - Planning Commission - May 8, 2013 5. Minutes - Design Review Board - June 6, 2013 6. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - June 20, 2013 7. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - June 26, 2013 8. Meeting Cancellation - Design Review Board - July 4, 2013 Regional a) Invitation - Marin Conservation League Picnic -July 27, 2013,12-3 p.m.* Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only Town of Tiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 — 435-7377 DIGEST At its June 19, 2013 regular meeting, the Tiburon Town Council appointed JEFF SLAVITZ to fill a vacancy on the Town Council on an interim basis until the November 5, 2013 election. NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL MAYOR EMMETT O'DONNELL VICE MAYOR COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER S/ Diane Crane Iacopi, CMC Tiburon Town Clerk June 20, 2013 ALICE FREDERICKS 101 ;7:101 C 011i�� JIM FRASER JEFF SLAVITZ 1. DIGEST Please publish under Legal Notices in The Ark, week of July 10, 7013 40 NOTICE OF ELECTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a General Municipal Election will be held in the Town of Tiburon on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, for the purpose of electing three Town Council members to serve for regular, four -year tern-is. The terms of the following Council members will expire in November: 1) Jim Fraser 2) Alice Fredericks 3) Emmett O'Donnell NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a Special Election (to be consolidated with the General Municipal Election) will be held in the Town of Tiburon on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, for the purpose of electing one Town Council member for a two -year term to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Town Council member Richard Collins. THEREFORE, there are four (4) seats open in this election: three (3) full -term seats and one (1) short -term seat. Interested residents who are registered voters in the Town of Tiburon may obtain nomination papers to run for Council from Town Clerk Diane Crane Iacopi, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday). The filing period will open on Monday, July 15, 2013, and will close on Friday, August 9, 2013. Town Hall is closed on Fridays, however, the office of the Town Clerk will remain open between the hours of 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on August 9 only, for the purpose of receiving nominations. If any one of the incumbents does not file for re- election, the nomination period for non - incumbent candidates only will be extended to Wednesday, August 14, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. A filing fee in the amount of $25.00 is charged to all candidates at the time nomination papers are issued, pursuant to Town Ordinance No. 118 N. S. Voter registration for said election closes on October 21, 2013. Polls will be open on Election Day from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. s/ Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk June 21, 2013 Date: To: From: Subject: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 June 28, 2013 Town Council Candidates and Interested Parties Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Information on November 5, 2013 Municipal Election CANDIDATE'S INFORMATION PACKET D I G ES"T A Candidate's Information Packet is being prepared to facilitate your filing for election to run for a seat on the Tiburon Town Council in the November 5, 2013 Municipal Election. Each Candidate will receive the same information. Along with the official Nomination Paper, this packet will contain various documents, instructions and general information that you will need during the course of the election campaign. Please refer to these documents throughout the campaign period. NOMINATION PAPERS A candidate for office of Town Council MUST BE A REGISTERED VOTER in the Town of Tiburon. The Nomination Paper is an official filing form, to be issued by the Town Clerk. The first day Nomination Papers can be obtained for circulation is Monday, July 15, 2013. In order to be accepted for filing, the form must be signed by not less than 20 or more than 30 registered voters of the Town of Tiburon. A voter may sign only one petition for each office; however, each vacancy in the November 5, 2013 election is considered a separate office; therefore, a voter may sign up to four (4) petitions for this election. A candidate may sign his or her own nomination form. You may circulate the Nomination Paper yourself, or you may have someone else circulate it, but YOU MUST SIGN AND FILE THE NOMINATION PAPER PERSONALLY IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK. It is recommended that you obtain the full 30 signatures to ensure that there are sufficient valid signatures. It is also recommended that you file early enough to allow time for verification of the signatures with the County Clerk and to allow time for a supplemental form to be circulated if there are any problems. Please note that each person signing the Nomination Paper must both sign and prin t his /her name and give a complete address (no post office boxes are acceptable). Successive signers may not use ditto marks to indicate that the Town is the same as on the line above. The last day to file Nomination Papers is Friday, August 9, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. If any ONE of the incumbents has not filed by 3:30 p.m. on Friday, August 9, the filing period will be extended for non - incumbent candidates only to Wednesday, August 14, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. Nomination Papers may be withdrawn up to the last day and hour for filing, but no later. 3. The Nomination Paper must be accompanied by a $25.00 filing fee made payable to Town of Tiburon. YOUR NAME ON THE BALLOT The way your name appears on the Nomination Paper is the way it will appear on the ballot. Be careful of the exact spelling and punctuation of your name. You may use a nickname in parentheses or quotation marks only. No personal titles will appear on the same line with your name on the ballot (Miss, Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., M.D., Ph.D., etc.). There is a space on the nomination form for a ballot designation. The ballot designation shall be no more than three words designating the principal profession, vocation or occupation of the Candidate. The word "incumbent" may be used by elected incumbent Candidates. If you are an appointed incumbent, you may use the words "appointed incumbent ". If you do not want a ballot designation, please write "None Requested ". The ballot designation may no 1. Mislead the voter. 2. Suggest an evaluation of a Candidate, such as "outstanding, leading, expert, or eminent." 3. Abbreviate the word "retired" or place it following any word or words that it modifies. 4. Use a word or prefix, such as "former" or "ex-', which means prior status. 5. Use the name of any political party. 6. Use a word or words referring to a racial, religious or ethnic group. 7. Refer to any activity that is prohibited by law. More in formation on selecting a ballot designation is contained in the attached 2013 Candidates' Guidelines issued by the County of Marin, as well as on the Ballot Designation Worksheet. CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS You may, if you choose, submit a Candidate's Statement of Qualifications at the time of filing the Nomination Paper. This statement will be published in the Voter's Pamphlet sent to all registered voters within the Town of Tiburon, along with the Sample Ballot, prior to the election. The official form to be used for this statement is attached. The Candidate's Statement may not exceed 200 words; the Candidate is responsible for the cost of printing the statement. For this election, the cost of printing the Candidates' Statement of Qualifications is estimated to be 193.00. ($486 for both English and Spanish). A check in this amount should be made out to the Town of Tiburon and given to the Tiburon Town Clerk at the time of filing. The Town Clerk will deliver the statement to the County of Marin for printing. The Candidate's Statement can be typed on a separate piece of paper but must be submitted with the form provided. The law implies uniformity in the printed appearance of all statements; therefore, do not use capital letters, unusual spacing, markings, asterisks, etc. Please review the statement carefully, as it cannot be changed after the filing deadline (3:30 p.m. on August 9, or 5:30 p.m. on August 14, 2013, if the filing period is extended). It can be withdrawn (not changed) the day after the filing period has ended. A proof will be sent to the candidate prior to printing only for correction of printing errors; other changes are not permitted by law. Candidate's Statements submitted at any time during the filing period are kept confidential until the last day and hour for filing. After that time, they become public record. ORDER OF NAMES ON THE BALLOT A drawing of the letters of the alphabet will be conducted by the Secretary of State in Sacramento on August 15, 2013, to determine the order of names on the ballot for all candidates. Each candidate will be placed on the ballot in the order that each of the letters of his /her surname was drawn. CANDIDATE'S INTENTION STATEMENT — Form 501 State law requires that any person who intends to raise or spend any campaign funds for his /her candidacy for elective office must report this information BEFORE funds are solicited or received. A Candidate Intention (Form 501) must be filed with the Town Clerk and is attached to this memo. CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION — Form 410 The Political Reform Act provides that candidates, and committees supporting Candidates, disclose all contributions and expenditures. If you will be establishing a Committee and expect that the Committee will receive contributions totaling $1,000 in this calendar year, or make expenditures totaling $1,000, you must select a Committee Treasurer (the candidate can be either the Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer) and file a Statement of Organization (Form 410) with the Secretary of State as soon as the Committee raises $1,000. This form is attached, along with a copy of your Campaign Disclosure "Manual 2" for Candidates and their Controlled Committees. STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST — Form 700 ALL CANDIDATES MUST FILE A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS WITH THEIR NOMINATION PAPERS. This allows the public to know what investments or business interests you have within the jurisdiction. Complete the attached Form 700 and check the box for "candidate" statement. FILING SCHEDULE FOR OTHER CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS — Form 460 During the campaign, Campaign Expenditure Statements (Form 460) must be filed no later than September 26, 2013 for the first reporting period; and by October 24, 2013 for the second reporting period. "Late" funds must be reported within 24 hours. A final Campaign Expenditure Statement must be filed no later than January 31, 2014, if you wish to keep your campaign bank account open. For questions concerning these forms, and other FPPC filings, you can call the Commission toll - free at 1- 866 - ASK -FPPC. MASS MAILING REQUIREMENTS Information on mass mailings and "Slate Mailers" can be found in the 2013 Candidates' Guidelines, and separate worksheet, both attached. POLITICAL SIGNS Information on size and placement of political signs, both within the Town limits and on CAL/TRANS right -of -way can be found in the back of the 2013 Candidates' Guidelines. GENERAL INFORMATION You are urged to read all the material carefully to ensure compliance with the various legal requirements and deadlines. This memo is merely a summary and not intended to be a comprehensive outline of the election process. It is provided as a service to candidates to become familiar with the general requirements of the California State Elections Code. We encourage all candidates and their campaign committee members to become familiar with the nomination and electoral process. The Town Clerk is precluded by law from giving you legal advice. While we welcome your questions and will attempt to be of assistance to you, only your attorney may offer you legal guidance. The Town Hall telephone number is 435 -7373; the Town Clerk's direct telephone line and voice mailbox is 435 -7377; my e -mail address is dcrane(a )ci.tiburon.ca.us; the Town's website is www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Good Luck! s/ Diane Crane lacopi Town Clerk -©-� The following attachments are NOT included with the Memo in the June 28, 2013 Town Council Digest. Attachments • Nomination Paper - Official Filing Form [TO BE ISSUED BY TOWN CLERK or deputy ONLY] • Ballot Designation Worksheet (required) • Code of Fair Campaign Practices (voluntary) • Candidate's Statement of Qualifications - Blank Form • 2013 Candidates' Guidelines prepared by County of Marin • Fair Political Practices Commission "Campaign Disclosure Manual 2" • Form 501 — Candidate's Statement of Intention • Form 410 — Statement of Organization • Form 460 — Recipient Committee Campaign Statement • Form 700 — Statement of Economic Interest cc: Town Manager Town Attorney DIGEST cvPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1031 May 8, 2013 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tollini called the meeting to order at 7:3 5 p.m. Present: Chair Tollini, and Commissioners Corcoran and Welner Absent: Vice Chair Weller Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley, and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Planning Manager Watrous introduced new Assistant Planner Kyra O'Malley to the Planning Commission. He said that the Town Council conducted one interview for the vacant position on the Planning Commission and had not yet made an appointment. Director Anderson said that there was a glitch getting the packet out to Commissioners electronically this week and asked if there is another method that would be better. He said that staff now has the ability to put the materials up on the website at the same time it is emailed to Commissioners and they can access it on the website. He asked the Commissioners if they preferred to have the packets mailed to them. Commissioner Corcoran suggested that it might be easier to upload the packet to the website and email a link to Commissioners. Chair Tollini said that she likes receiving an e -mail telling them there is a meeting, and Director Anderson noted that that would not change. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the version on the website is usually one PDF file with all staff reports and is not broken up into individual pieces. He said they could try to simply download the reports to the website, but if Commissioners feel they are missing pieces the process could be changed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD: RENEWAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY; FILE #19705; Town of Tiburon, Owner; Sprint Nextel, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 058 -172- 92 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1031 PAGE 1 Planning Manager Watrous said that this request is for a wireless communications facility, originally approved in 1997, which currently operates on property located at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard (Tiburon Town Hall). The operators of the facility are requesting a five -year renewal of the use permit. The facility includes six panel antennas mounted on the corners of the clock tower of Town Hall, and four equipment cabinets located inside the Town Hall building. He said that the permit was subsequently renewed in 1998, 2002 and 2008, and they are now requesting the next five -year time period. He said that there have been no complaints and over the years reports have shown compliance with FCC standards. He noted that in 2012 the applicant requested replacing the antennas and these have not yet been installed, but the building permit for those antennas was received late last week. Richard Tang, representing Sprint Nextel, said that he was available to answer any questions. Chair Tollini asked if there was a radiation frequency report for the proposed installation. Mr. Tang said that the report had not yet been finished, but based upon preliminary measurements of January 4th the facility would be approximately 40% of the FCC requirements. There were no public comments. Commissioner Welner noted that radiation is outside of the purview of the Commission as long as it falls within federal guidelines. He said that the current application was well below those limits, and he thought that it made sense to renew the permit. Commissioner Corcoran agreed with Commissioner Welner, but pointed out that the last report on emissions was now 10 years old. He said that his preference would be to wait for a new study to be completed. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the use permit expires May 14, 2013, but stated that the Commission had the ability to require an RF study to show compliance. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the permit could be extended for a shorter period of time. Planning Manager Watrous said that there is a five -year minimum renewal period. Director Anderson confirmed that state law extended it to a five -year minimum and pointed out that these facilities are required to do a post - installation RF study. Chair Tollini clarified that the study done in January was a theoretical study and that after the installation the study must be done again to show the actual levels. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Commission could require that if the RF study shows the facility to not be in compliance with FCC standards the permit would be brought back to the Commission. He noted the requirement that it is in compliance with FCC standards is in the previous conditions of approval. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Corcoran) to adopt the attached resolution granting a renewal of the conditional use permit for 1505 Tiburon Boulevard until May 14, 2018, with the additional condition of approval that a new RF study shall be performed for the new antennas on the facility and if the study demonstrates higher radio frequency than FCC standards then a hearing shall be required before the Commission for the conditional use permit. Motion carried: 3 -0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1031 PAGE 2 2. 1630 -1632 TIBURON BOULEVARD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A DRY CLEANING & CLOTHING ALTERATIONS USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) ZONE; FILE #11302; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Maria French Cleaners, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel Number: 059- 101 -03 Director Anderson said that Maria French Cleaners requested to establish a pick -up /drop off location for dry cleaning services within the Maritime Annex building. The use would also entail alterations and tailoring of clothing. Maria French Cleaners recently vacated the building at 1704 Tiburon Boulevard with the intention of relocating to the Maritime Center. A conditional use permit was required due to the change in use from the prior office uses to a personal service -type use. Director Anderson said that the use would occupy 1,075 square feet of the existing ground floor commercial space at 1630 and 1632 Tiburon Boulevard. No dry cleaning or laundry processes would take place on the site and would be performed at locations outside the Town of Tiburon. Approximately 15 -20 walk -in clients were anticipated daily in standard size vehicles (no trucks).Two employees are proposed at maximum shift. Hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday; closed on Sundays and major holidays. This new location will provide additional parking and adequate circulation at the center. Commissioner Corcoran asked and confirmed that an unsigned letter was from Michael Miller. Chair Tollini asked who is responsible for enforcing parking on this site. Director Anderson said that this is a private lot and the landowner is responsible. Jan Harder, representing the owner ACV Argo Tiburon LP, said that they were very excited to welcome their new tenants to the Annex Building. She said that there was no parking at their previous location and acknowledged that parking is an issue in Tiburon and that she was doing everything she could to enforce parking in the lots. She said that they felt confident that this tenant would be a big bonus for the building and help to lease some of the other spaces. There were no public comments. Commissioner Corcoran welcomed the new owners to the Town. He was sad to hear that Knight's Hardware was closing and said that proposed site would be a- dramatic improvement in parking for Maria French Cleaners. He suggested including language in the conditional use permit stating that there shall be no truck deliveries. He thought that this would be a reasonable use of the space and supported the project. Commissioner Welner said that he did not have much to add to was stated by Commissioner Corcoran, but felt that this was a very reasonable use and he supported the permit. Chair Tollini said that she also was glad to see the cleaners move to a location where they will have some parking. She said that there is nothing that the Commission can do to alleviate the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1031 PAGE 3 parking situation. She did not feel strongly about clarifying the truck delivery in the language of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Welner asked the applicant if they had any comment about adding language about truck deliveries to the permit. Ms. Harder said that a small car would make the deliveries and she doubted that a truck would be needed. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Welner) to adopt the attached resolution approving the conditional use permit for 1630 -1632 Tiburon Boulevard, with the additional condition of approval stating that no large trucks shall be used for pick up or delivery. Motion carried: 3 -0. 3. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KOL SHOFAR SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY SCHOOL; FILE #10404; Congregation Kol Shofar, Owner and Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038- 351-34 Planning Manager Watrous said that in 2007 the Town Council approved a conditional use permit for a remodel of Kol Shofar Synagogue. This is the fourth six -month review of that permit. He noted that there had been some previous discussion about maintenance of the landscaping, and the Town received some photos of overgrown vegetation on Reed Ranch Way from a neighbor. He stated that there has been a steady improvement in managing the parking situation on High Holy Days. He said that the Planning Commission has the authority to modify the restrictions required by the conditional use permit and suggested that the Commission consider allowing staff to monitor the upcoming High Holy Day parking and traffic instead of hiring an outside consultant. Commissioner Welner noted for the record that he is an unpaid Boardmember at the Jewish Community Center, which is a tenant for the preschool facility that is located at the Kol Shofar site. Commissioner Corcoran asked staff if there would be two more six -month reviews after tonight and then the reviews would become annual. Planning Manager Watrous confirmed that that is the case. Commissioner Corcoran asked if Kol Shofar was in the process of implementing the recommendations of their arborist report. Planning Manager Watrous suggested addressing that question to the applicant. Joshua Steinhauer, member of Kol Shofar and past president, said that they have regular landscaping maintenance and the weeds and rubbish situation have been addressed. He stated that some plants have failed in that location after multiple attempts and they will need to find another solution. He asked if it was possible to avoid holding another public hearing regarding the monitoring of High Holy Day parking and traffic. Chair Tollini asked if the trees indicated for removal by the arborist report have been removed. Mr. Steinhauer said that they are in the process of implementing the items in the report. Chair Tollini asked if the pine trees have been removed. Nancy Drapin, Executive Director of Kol Shofar, said that they are currently pricing the removal and the trees will be removed. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1031 PAGE 4 Planning Manager Watrous noted Exhibit 1; section C, of the use permit resolution requires unannounced traffic monitoring of events to be done by independent monitor for at least two years after the opening of the multi - purpose building. As it has been more than two years, he stated that an additional hearing would not be needed to change that requirement to staff monitoring. He requested input from the Planning Commission regarding that issue. There were no public comments. Commissioner Corcoran said that it was tremendous to see the positive change in these meetings over the past two years. He recalled the very contentious meetings at the beginning of the process. He commended Kol Shofar for working to meet the concerns of the neighbors and supported not requiring an independent observer for traffic at additional cost to Kol Shofar. He noted that at the last meeting the Commission discussed changing this review to an annual review, and he thought that that would be a good change. He added, however, that there are only two more reviews before the annual reviews take place. He stated that there has been a trend toward longer review periods or reviews on a complaint -basis only for similar facilities in Tiburon. Commissioner Welner also commended Kol Shofar for doing an outstanding job in meeting the requirements of the conditional use permit. He agreed that the requirement for an independent observer could be eliminated, as long as that did not place an undue burden on Town staff. He stated that the amount of time that has passed is getting close to the "substantial period of time" mentioned in the use permit before conditions of approval could be modified. He said that the amount of time and the extreme level of non - controversy suggest to him that the permit should be amended to require annual reviews instead of the six -month reviews. Planning Manager Watrous stated that another noticed hearing would be required to make that change to the use permit, and suggested that the notice for the next six -month review include the possibility of making such an amendment. Chair Tollini liked that idea and felt that six months from now would be a more appropriate time of year to bring up the issue. Chair Tollini said that she had no issue with having staff conduct the parking and traffic monitoring. She said that she drove by that day to look at the conditions on Reedland Woods Way, and requested removal of additional fencing refuse. Commissioner Corcoran said that he supported the idea of extending the review period, and asked that it be discussed at the next six month review. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Welner) to conclude that Kol Shofar Synagogue and Appurtenant Day School is in substantial compliance with its conditional use permit. Motion carried: 3 -0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1031 PAGE 5 MINUTES: 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 13, 2013 ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Corcoran) to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2013 meeting as written. Motion carried: 3 -0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. ERIN TOLLINI, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON Acting Secretary TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 8, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1031 PAGE 6 �{ •� ,yam .�'„' K"Y �� MINUTES #9 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 69 2013 The meeting was opened at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Emberson. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emberson, Boardinembers Tollini, Kricensky and Cousins Absent: Vice Chair Chong Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley, Director of Community Development Anderson and Minutes Clerk Goldstein B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous advised that the application for 2235 Centro East Street had been postponed to the June 20, 2013 meeting. Chair Emberson noted that the agenda was quite full with eight items and inquired if there was anyone who wanted to allow a postponement to the next meeting. No one came forward, and the meeting was started. She advised that strict time limits would be observed in order to proceed as swiftly as possible. D. ACTION ITEMS 1. 1550 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 51304; Belvedere Land Company, Owner; Woodlands Market, Applicant; Sign Permit for installation of an exterior sign for a grocery store (Woodlands Market), with a Minor Exception. The project would include one indirectly - illuminated wall sign. Assessor's Parcel No. 060 - 082 -57. The applicant is requesting approval of a sign permit for the installation of a new sign for the Woodlands Market. A 57.5 square foot wall sign would be attached to the Tiburon Boulevard - facing building wall above the store entrance. The sign would be lit through a combination of halo - lighting and external indirect illumination using gooseneck -type fixtures. The sign would be multi- colored and would depict a variety of fruits and vegetables above the words "Woodlands Market ". Colors of the fruits and vegetables would include orange, purple, tan, green and red. Lettering for "Woodlands'' would be green with a cream - colored background, while lettering for "Market" would be cream - colored with a green background. A minor exception is requested in order to transfer all the sign area allocation from the Beach Road frontage to the Tiburon Boulevard frontage. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/6/13 Don Santa with Woodlands Market said that he had nothing to add to the staff report and he was happy to answer any questions. He also noted the presence of Isaac Ewing, owner of the sign company and designer who was present to answer any questions. There were no public comments. Boardmember Kricensky liked the sign and said that it fit the space. He agreed with the staff report as well as staff s findings that the colors on the sign should be muted such as on the presentation and not bolder or shinier. Boardmember Tollini thought that it was a tastefully designed sign and agreed with staff s conclusions and findings as well. Boardmember Cousins echoed these sentiments. Chair Emberson said that she was happy with the sign and was pleased with the halo lighting and the way it was used. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Kricensky) that the request for 1550 Tiburon Boulevard is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Chong absent). 2. TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD: Trestle Glen Terrace, LLC, Owner; Arthur Giovara, applicant. As required by Precise Development Plan conditions of approval, review of specific elements of the subdivision improvement drawings for the Trestle Glen Circle project, a 3 -unit subdivision on 14.5 acres on the southeast side of Trestle Glen Boulevard. Specific elements to be reviewed include roadway landscaping to be installed as part of the subdivision improvements, planting list review for future landscaping of individual lots, fencing, entry columns, a street light, and two debris flow barrier fences. Assessor's Parcel No. 039 - 061 -91. The Town has approved a 3 -lot subdivision for a 14.46 -acre parcel on the south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard, known as the Trestle Glen Circle Subdivision. Conditions of approval on the earlier Precise Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map permits required that the Design Review Board review certain project elements during the parcel map /subdivision improvement drawing phase of the project. That phase is now underway and approval of the parcel map by the Town Council will likely occur this summer. Arthur Giovara, owner and managing member of Trestle Glen Terrace LLC, thanked everyone for their time dedicated to his project. He said that the project will be a 3 lot residential subdivision on over 14 acres, with access from a common, private driveway connecting from Trestle Glen Boulevard. He described the phase one development improvements that would include the common driveway to access each lot, landslide repair, common storm drains and storm water treatment, private water and sewer laterals, dry utilities, tree mitigation and landscape and construction improvements. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/6/13 Vice Chair Chong arrived at the meeting. Boardmember Tollini asked if Mr. Giovara had any thoughts on the staff report suggestion regarding painting of the new debris fence in order to blend better with the backdrop. Mr. Giovara replied that the fence would be a natural color and he was open to suggestion as to color choices, or landscaping in front of it, from the two residences that the fence would face. Chair Emberson questioned the proximity of the mailboxes to Trestle Glen Boulevard with no apparent pullout. She wondered if the mailboxes could be pulled back to allow for safe snail pick up for the residents. Boardmember Cousins commented that there would need to be space for a postal service truck to stop safely. Mr. Giovara referenced one sheet of the plans that showed a triangular area as a pull out and said that he had no objection to increasing the size of that area. Boardmember Tollini noted that one rendering did not appear to show an accurate representation as to the size of the pullout, wherein another rendering showed a decent sized entry area. Director of Community Development Anderson confinned that the drawing was not very accurate but that the other rendering, with the greater pullout area, was more accurate. He noted that the postal service would have the final call on the mailbox location. Boardmember Tollini suggested that the mailboxes should be on the other side of the roadway but that was a minor issue in his view. Chair Emberson agreed that the most logical access to the mailboxes was on the other side of the roadway. Boardmember Cousins suggested a condition of approval that the postal service determine the locations of the mailboxes. Chair Emberson asked Jim Catlin, landscape architect, if the Town Council had prescribed the number of trees to be planted. Mr. Catlin replied that the Council required a 3 to 1 ratio on the removal of 24 trees that led to the required planting of 72 new trees. Chair Emberson questioned the necessity of all the groundcover, as she believed that a drought was imminent and she did not see the need for all the landscaping in addition to the individual house landscaping, as there was enough natural vegetation on the frontage of Trestle Glen Boulevard. Boardmember Cousins asked if drip irrigation systems would be provided. Mr. Catlin explained that there would be a drip irrigation system and the native myrtle trees would primarily be used for screening. He stated that all the plants were chosen for their drought tolerance and adaptation to the environment and climate, and that once established, they would not need much watering. Boardmember Cousins asked how the irrigation scheme would be controlled. Mr. Catlin replied that the irrigation would initially be on a battery operated timing device, then hardwired to electrical service when the houses are developed. Boardmember Cousins asked about the ongoing landscape maintenance once the houses were developed. Mr. Catlin said that there would be a maintenance plan in the CC &Rs describing the responsibility of the property owners. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/6//13 Boardmember Cousins asked if irrigation would be required once the plantings were established. Mr. Catlin replied that after a year or two, the irrigation would be lessened in frequency and the timers adjusted accordingly. Boardmember Tollini pointed out that the landscape screening would be important to the homeowners on Juno Road and a critical part of the approval. Boardmember Kricensky agreed and said that the Town Council did their due diligence and required the screening. Chair Emberson asked about the responsibility of maintaining the watering system. Mr. Catlin said that the weekly duties of a reputable maintenance company would include a check on the drip irrigation system. Director of Community Development Anderson noted that the Town required bonding as security for the original installation of landscaping and maintenance for a period of time. Mr. Giovara confirmed that there was a condition to plant the trees, as the neighbors wanted screening. The said that they were not allowed to put trees in the open space due to fire regulations. Boardmember Kricensky brought up the fence painting issue. He agreed that the fencing should be painted but finding the right color could be tricky and surprisingly, black could be a good choice. Boardmember Tollini said that he was happy to direct the applicant to work with staff regarding the color as an additional condition. He also asked about the deer fence and the use of polypropylene and what it would like. Mr. Giovara replied that it would be black- coated wire and would mimic the fence there now. The public hearing was opened. Daniel Amir said that he had been very involved in the review of the Trestle Glen Circle project He requested the planting of more mature trees if possible and to require the applicant to install two owl boxes on the property. He said that the owl boxes already in place have been quite successful. Chair Emberson asked if the owl boxes would be in the common area and what the purpose would be. Mr. Amir was unsure if the placement of the owl boxes would be in the common area, but owls lived in the area and having boxes on the hillside would encourage them to stay. He said that he had worked with a nonprofit agency to install the existing boxes, there was some maintenance involved and the boxes cost a few hundred dollars to establish. Sheila Peterson was concerned that the driveway would come down and go both west and east and said that there were frequent accidents on that corner. She was also concerned with the mailbox being close to the road. Boardmember Kricensky advised that there was already discussion regarding the mailbox and the Board was satisfied that the postal service would make the appropriate decision. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 4 6/6/13 Boardmember Tollini thought that the traffic safety issue was about a blind corner turning out of the subdivision. He said that there would not be much additional traffic as this was only a three house subdivision. Director of Community Development Anderson interjected that the issues of traffic safety were addressed thoroughly by the Planning Commission and Town Council and that there would be mitigation measures addressing this issue. He stated that the Board would just be addressing the landscaped entry. Melissa Hopps said that she was concerned about the additional lighting. She said that people drive very fast on Trestle Glen Boulevard and she was also concerned about another road feeding into it. She was also concerned about the deer fencing. Director of Community Development Anderson noted that the fencing was a 90 -foot long segment to be installed at the request of one of the neighbors. Planning Manager Watrous also advised that the vast majority of the hillside would be open with no fencing and that this fence served a specific purpose at that point. Mr. Giovara said that the street light that was proposed would shine down and be located behind the mailboxes. He said that if the mailboxes were moved, the light fixture would not move with them but stay at the entrance to the project. he noted that the original project CC &R's restricted owl boxes but he had no objection to putting them up, as they would cut down on mice in the orchard. Chair Emberson asked about the size of the trees to be planted. Mr. Catlin said that he initially looked at 15- gallon size trees, but decided on using 24 -inch box trees. He said that in terms of economy of scale, these would be a great size and should do well. He stated that phase one of the planting would include 32 trees specified to be 24 -inch box sized. Boardmember Cousins asked if there was a plan to stop the deer from eating the newly planted trees. Mr. Catlin replied that they would be putting wire baskets around the trunks of the trees that would be five or six feet high, to give the trees a chance to grow. The public hearing was closed. Chair Emberson thought the project was easy to support. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the motion to conditionally approve the application would be amended to include the following additional conditions: • Staff specifying color of debris fencing, • Mailbox location to be determined by the postal service, • 24 inch box trees to be planted in phase 1, • Owl boxes to be installed. Vice -Chair Chong joined the meeting. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky /Tollini) that the request for Trestle Glen Boulevard is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional conditions of staff specifying the color of the debris TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/6/13 fence, the mailbox location to be determined by postal service, 24 inch box trees to be required in Phase 1 and owl boxes to be installed. Vote: 5 -0. Chair Emberson conferred with the Boardmembers to change the order of discussion. It was agreed to move 510 Ridge Road to last position on the agenda. E. OLD BUSINESS 3. 2235 CENTRO EAST STREET: File No. 712127; Lucy Zhang, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The applicant proposes to expand the existing ground floor living room toward the front with additions to the western side of the house. A new master bedroom suite, deck and vaulted ceiling over the ground level living room would be added to the second floor of the house. The existing flat roofs would be replaced by pitched roofs. The project would increase the floor area by 499 square feet to a total of 3,171 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 23.8 %, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 141 -13. [DW] CONTINUED TO 6/20/13 4. 18 CLAIRE WAY: File No. 21302; Monique and Emmet Devlin, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a new single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. More than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished, resulting in a new one -story dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 2,528 square feet. The lot coverage of 39.8% would exceed the maximum 30.0% lot coverage permitted in the R -1 -BA zone. The house would extend to within 15 feet, 1 inch of the front property line, which is less than the 20 -foot front yard setback required in the R -1 -BA zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 112 -14. [DW] The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one -story single- family dwelling on property located at 18 Claire Way. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single- family dwelling. This application was first reviewed at the May 2, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring residents raised concerns about the height of the roofline on the uphill side of the house and whether the additional height would constitute a second story for the house. The adjacent residents at 22 Claire Way were concerned about potential privacy impacts from new windows facing their home. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns and directed the applicant to revise the design to lower the proposed roofline and address the privacy concerns of the neighboring property owners. The application was continued to the June 6, 2013 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project which include the following changes to the house design: TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6 6/6/13 • The roof of the house has been redesigned, with the main roof ridge running across the width of the house. The highest point of the roof has been lowered 2 feet, 2 inches, lowering the maximum building height from 17 feet, 4 inches to 15 feet, 2 inches, only 2 feet, 5 inches taller than the existing house. Two roof gables have been added to the front of the building. The locations of the 12 proposed skylights have been slightly shifted on the roof. The floor plan of the house remains essentially the same, but the floor area has increased by 50 square feet to a proposed total of 2,578 square feet. The size of the garage has been reduced by 7 square feet to 385 square feet. The lot coverage has increased by 21 square feet to a total of 3,017 square feet (40.1 %). A variance for excess lot coverage is still requested. A variance for a reduced front yard of 15 feet, 1 inch is still requested as well. An 18 -inch tall wood lattice section would be added on top of the existing 6 -foot tall solid wood fence along the southern (left) property line shared with the property at 22 Claire Way. The 7 foot, 6 inch combined height of the fence and lattice would exceed the 6 -foot maximum fence height allowed within required setbacks. Therefore a variance is also requested for excess fence height. Jim Mallott, architect, said that the overall building height had been brought down by 2'2" in order to satisfy the previously raised concerns. He provided photographs of existing homes in the neighborhood that have undergone renovations with similar heights to this project. He stated that the neighborhood character was changing in a healthy way with a rich complexity. He also noted that three maple trees were planned for the front yard in order to help with screening. In response to the privacy concern, he said that they plan on adding a 16 -18 inch trellis on top of the existing 6 foot fence, plus plantings. He said that windows were still necessary on this side of the home for light. Boardmember Tollini asked whether an agreement had been reached with the neighbors regarding the side yard fence. Mr. Mallott replied that the proposal was to use the existing fence, which averaged 6 feet in height, with a new 18 inch trellis on top. He said that a new fence had been discussed but doing so would incur a minor change in the location due to the existing fence not exactly following the property line. Emmet Devlin, owner, stated that they had initially reached out to the neighbors adjacent to this property, as they would be the most impacted and an agreement had been reached. He said that subsequently, privacy issues were brought up at the last meeting and he thought that the trellis on top of the existing fence would alleviate that concern. He said that he would like to use the existing fence as it was already in perfectly good condition. He noted that concern at the last meeting that neighbors across the street might not approve the tall gables, and in response he had obtained approvals from the neighbors across the street regarding the redesigned gables. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 7 6/6/13 Thomas Knauer confirmed that the project was acceptable based on the conditions as they had been laid out, and he was in favor of the project. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Chong took a picture from the first time around and said that he went back to the site to review the height again. He felt that it was definitely the right height now, the design still looked nice, and he supported the project and agreed with staff s findings. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Vice Chair Chong. Boardmember Tollini said that he missed the prior meeting but he had reached the same conclusion that the new height was appropriate and proportional to the neighborhood. Boardmember Cousins said that he liked the asymmetrical features of the previous version, but if the new design had the approval of the neighbors, that was most important. Chair Emberson said that if they did not want to put 3 trees in the front yard, 2 trees would be acceptable. She liked the trellis across the fence and thought that the trees were good. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the request for 18 Claire Way is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 5. 5 TARA HILL ROAD: File No. 21312; Jan and Anette Bratteberg, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. Minor additions would be constructed to the existing house and a new pool house and swimming pool would be constructed at the rear of the lot. The project would increase the floor area to a total of 4,360 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 3,948 square feet (16.7 %) of the site, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 281 -08. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling with a variance for excess lot coverage, on property located at 5 Tara Hill Road. Currently, the property is improved with a two -story dwelling. As part of an interior remodel to the home, the proposal would incorporate a bedroom, office, bathroom, and one -car garage to the lower level and convert portions of the existing crawl space into a basement, (which would include a new laundry room and gym). The existing skylights would be replaced with new skylights in the same locations on the roof. The two upper decks in front would be modified to be consistent with the proposed addition of the house. In addition, a pool house with pool equipment, underground pool, fire pit, and ten foot high (10') trellis are proposed in the backyard. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/6/13 The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 4,360 square feet, which is below the maximum pennitted gross floor area ratio for the property (4,366 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,948 square feet (16.7 %), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO -2 zone (15.0 %). The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage. David Holscher, architect, explained that the project would update the siding to green stucco and wood slats, add a garage, a basement, a more formal entry and a pool house. Boardmember Kricensky was curious about the purpose for the second driveway. Mr. Holscher explained that it would serve as a simple way for service help to access the back yard and not block the street. Vice Chair Chong asked about the concept of having multiple, separate buildings rather than keeping all the buildings together as the Hillside Design Guidelines would suggest. Mr. Holscher said that a pool house was an activity base that should be near the pool rather than next to the master bedroom and by situating it away from the main building, it also extended the play area. Planning Manager Watrous advised that the Hillside Guidelines discouraged multiple outbuildings rather than any outbuilding. There were no public comments. Boardmember Cousins asked about the possibility of bringing the roof height of the pool house down, as there was a letter from a neighbor concerned about this issue. Mr. Holscher replied that the original story poles were built using an inaccurate survey and once they realized the problem they rebuilt the story poles to the correct grade that was 2'8" lower. Boardmember Tollini said that the screening was abundant around the home. He said that the proposed changes to the exterior of the home were conservatively done and would not be impactful, with a lot of space on the lower level. He agreed with staff s findings on the variance. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Tollini. He also thought that the separation of the two buildings was appropriate and the rest of the remodel seemed modest. He was pleased that they stayed under the FAR and stayed at one story for the most part with the expansion underneath rather than going up in height. Vice Chair Chong said that he was able to view the project from the backyard and he confirmed that the story poles were underneath the hedges and that the uphill neighbor would not see them. He said that having the pool house away from the main house made sense and was a good use of that corner of the yard. He supported the application. Chair Emberson liked the changes to the exterior elevation. She thought it would be a good addition to the neighborhood and supported the project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 9 6/6/13 ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) that the request for 5 Tara Hill Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5 -0. 6. 1940 STRAITS VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21310; North Sol Invest LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a new single- family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced front yard setback and a Floor Area Exception. The new four -level dwelling would result in lot coverage of 14.6% and a total floor area of 4,475 square feet, which is 302 square feet greater than the 4,173 square foot floor area ratio for this lot. The house would extend to within 4 feet of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot front yard setback required in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 -091 -18. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new four -story single- family dwelling on property located at 1940 Straits View Drive. The subject site is currently developed with a three -story dwelling and a detached studio building, which will be demolished as part of this project. The upper level of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, office, storage and shop rooms and a powder room. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, two additional bedrooms, three more bathrooms, a media room, wet bar and a laundry room. A cabana is proposed at the pool level, adjacent to a proposed swimming pool and spa, below the lower level. A two -car garage would be situated at the street level, above the upper level. An elevator would connect three levels of the house. Six (6) skylights and two (2) fireplace chimneys would be installed on the roof. New wood or wood and wire fencing is proposed along the front and sides of the site. The house would cover a total of 3,168 square feet (14.6 %) of the site, which would be less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,475 square feet, which would be 302 square feet greater than the 4,173 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested. A portion of the proposed house would be situated within 4 feet of the front property line. As a 30 -foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback. Dr. Angiolo Laviziano, owner, said that he wanted to create a very green building, an issue that was very dear to his heart. He said that he planned to use everything that was available to create an environmentally sound and low footprint home. Additionally, he wanted to work with the neighbors and shared the design many months ago. He stated that vegetation that was growing into view corridors and that all the pine and eucalyptus trees would be taken out due to their fire hazard, water consumption and growth into view corridors and replaced with lower growing trees. Dr. Laviziano noted the steep lot and said that he tried to work with the topography. He said that to address neighbor's concerns, the story poles were constructed three times to clarify issues. He said that the garage design was unusual in order to conserve view concerns of one neighbor, and he thought it was a great solution. He hoped they balanced what could be done with the property. Michael Heckmann, architect, said that one main objective was to have a modern interpretation of a Mediterranean style home with clean lines and he described the colors and materials. He TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 10 6/6/13 said that some of the environmental features included collecting rainwater for irrigation, drought tolerant plants and solar panels on the south facing roofs. He said that the materials for the project would be sourced regionally and they planned to recycle as much of the existing home as possible. He said that they had repositioned the garage to gain a larger entry garden, with a low horizontal wood fence along the front to minimize the importance of the garage. Mr. Heckmann noted the extensive communication with the neighbors and a letter of support from one neighbor. He said that the floor area exception came late in the project because they wanted an additional structure for exercise equipment and the pool and there was no opposition to the exception. He stated that another neighbor requested two story poles to represent the chimney caps and they did not seem to have any issues. He said that they analyzed the garage floor elevation in response to some concerns and a civil engineer had strongly suggested an even taller height to accommodate vehicles and lessen the intrusion of street water. Mr. Heckmann noted that a limiting factor with the garage was the elevator shaft. He said that it would be possible to reduce the cross framing by three inches but it was his understanding that the garage did not impact the neighbor's view from their primary living areas. The public hearing was opened. Trudy Taich said that she had lived in her home since it was built and she felt that this project would take out her view completely with its height and trees. Bernard Lacroute said that he worked with Mr. Heckmann for several months in order to resolve potential issues. He thought that an agreement had been reached with the height of the garage but now has seen that height go up. He understood the desire for an 8 -foot garage with an elevator, but he did not find it reasonable to increase the height by 15 inches. In his view, there were other alternatives to the increased height and he said that he would like to reach a compromise. Pat Buck said that the applicant had her full support, as the new construction would not impact her home at all. She said that the project seemed like it would culminate in a very nice home but she also supported the neighbors if they felt they were impacted. Mr. Heckmann said that they continue to have difficulty in reducing the height of the garage. The slight increase of the height of the garage would have a minimal impact on Mr. Lacroute's panoramic view. In addition, the roof slopes much greater than before, to comply with current codes. He walked the property of the neighbors as much as possible and was surprised that Mrs. Taich had an issue. Based on the position of her home, and presuming any view obstruction, if at all, would be toward Oakland and not Raccoon Straits. In addition, the removal of the trees should significantly improve the views for all of the neighbors. Boardmember Cousins asked about the possibility of a drainage system for the garage to avoid possible flooding rather than raising the height of the floor. Mr. Heckmann replied that a civil engineer recommended the floor height, if not even higher, in order to maintain clearance of vehicles at the high point and low point. They were relying on TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 11 6/6/13 consultants to advise them on the appropriate level. They were not opposed to working with Mr. Lacroute to resolve the issues at hand. Chair Emberson asked if there was any way to compromise on the height of the garage. Mr. Heckmann replied that in speaking with the engineer, they could shave three inches off of the height. They might be able to shave another three inches for a total of six inches but that would be the maximum. He could not see, however, how those few inches would make much difference. Boardmember Cousins said that the existing garage was completely screened from the neighbor and that the story poles do come up. Chair Emberson confirmed the area on the photo where the existing garage was located. Mr. Heckmann said that they reoriented the building differently and from inside Mr. Lacroute's house, from the living areas, he did not think it was possible to see the story poles. He had tried to view the project from inside Mr. Lacroute's home but was not able to arrange a time. The Boardmembers discussed various photos of the site to determine where the garage would be located. Dr. Laviziano said that he would be happy with a minimum height of the garage. He was most concerned about water intrusion into the garage and would be glad to compromise. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said he had some difficulty visiting the Mr. Lacroute's house but he was familiar with the location from another project and felt that the photo was taken from the front of the site or the driveway. In his view, the application came down to the possibility of reducing the roof height but he did not feel that there was a compelling enough reason to require such a reduction. He felt there would be a minimal impact on the neighborhood and appreciated the applicant's willingness to compromise. He also agreed with staff s findings on the floor area exception. Boardmember Cousins agreed with Boardmember Tollini. He characterized the amount of obstruction as small and stated that the applicant had looked at ways to reduce the height. Vice Chair Chong struggled with the issue, as he was not able to get onto the properties. He felt that the photos from Mr. Lacroute's and Ms. Taich's properties were accurate representations of the area from his memory of other projects. He agreed with the other Boardmembers that any difference in height would be a small impact. He felt that not having the extra space in the garage could be a hardship that would outweigh the hardship of a very small view impact. He said that when the trees are removed, the house would not impact the slot view from the front of Ms. Taich's property. Boardmember Kricensky said that he had a slight issue with the floor area exception, but the house would have no impact on anyone. He agreed with the other Boardmembers about the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 12 6/6/13 views. He said that this would be a very modest garage, not out of scale, and the height was about as low as it could get without becoming unusable for anything other than a small car. He said that other homes have panoramic views and he thought that this would impact just one small piece of those views, noting that at least one house currently blocks that part of the view with their own shrubs. Chair Emberson agreed with the conclusions as well. She said that with the panoramic views, combined with the removal of some of the trees, the issue would fade away for the neighbors once the project was complete and became part of the landscape. Boardmember Kricensky noted that the view gained from the removal of the screening of the lower portion of the waterway might be more valuable. Vice Chair Chong asked Planning Manager Watrous about findings for the variance. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Board would need to have consensus that the revised story poles for the garage did not interfere with the view of the neighbors to make the final variance finding. The consensus of the Board was that the project would not impact such views. Boardmember Tollini thought it might be possible to reduce the height by three inches, but thought that it was not necessary. Chair Emberson thought that three inches would not make much of a difference and was not warranted in this situation. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Kricensky) that the request for 1940 Straits View Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5 -0. 7. 266 KAREN WAY: File No. 21313; Naomi and Robert Leonard, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a new single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The new one -story dwelling would result in and a total floor area of 2,721 square feet and lot coverage of 39.8% which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage in the R -1 -BA zone. The house would extend to within 19 feet, 6 inches of the rear property line, which is less than the 22 foot, 9 inch rear yard setback required in the R -1 -BA zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 114 -04. The applicant is requesting to construct a new single- family dwelling with variances for excess lot coverage and reduced rear yard setback on property located at 266 Karen Way in the Bel Aire Neighborhood. Currently, the property is approved with a one -story single family dwelling. The proposed single- story home would include a formal entry foyer, kitchen, nook, den, living room, dining room, mud room, guest room/office, powder room, bathroom, two bedrooms, and master bedroom suite. An outdoor patio with fireplace would extend off the living room at the back of the home. In addition, a two -car garage would be proposed on the west side of the home with a new paved driveway. There would be ten new skylights installed throughout the new roof. Existing trees and ivy would remain with additional landscaping would be installed to maintain the privacy with the adjacent neighbors. In addition, on both sides of the side property, new six TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 13 6/6/13 foot (6') natural redwood /cedar gates would be installed; the existing non - conforming eight foot (8') tall wooden fence on the sides and rear property would remain. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,721 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (2,807 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,209 square feet (39.8 %), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 -B -A zone (30.0 %). The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage. In addition, the minimum required rear yard setback in the R -1 -B -A zone is 20 percent of the depth of lot; for the subject property, the required rear yard is twenty feet, six inches (22' 6 "). As part of the new construction, the proposed master bedroom suite would encroach into the rear yard setback a distance of three feet (3') for a reduced rear yard setback of nineteen feet, six inches (19'6 "). Therefore, the applicant has requested a variance for reduced rear yard setback. Mark Fischbach, architect, thanked staff for their help with the application and thanked the neighbors and homeowners for working together on reaching a consensus. He said that building height was of utmost importance in this neighborhood so they have proposed a ridge height of 15 feet that would be in keeping with the neighbors. He said that the L- shaped design seemed to be the best option in order to allow for spaciousness while not getting too large. He said that there would be screening for privacy with the neighbors. Robert Leonard, owner, said they have been living in the neighborhood for six years already and decided to invest and stay. He stated that the initial site plans included signatures from the adjacent neighbors in support of the project and they had decided to lower the ridge height of the home in order to keep everyone happy. He said that they hope to use a modular builder for the project that would be more efficient, faster and greener. There were no public comments. Boardmember Kricensky thought the home was well done and would be fit very into the neighborhood. He noted that this was the second modular home to be reviewed by the Board recently. He had no objections to the project and agreed with staff s findings for the variances. Boardmember Tollini echoed Boardmember Kricensky's comments. He said that he would like to see more modular homes due to their lack of environmental impact. He loved the layout of the house and thought that the outdoor living room with fireplace would be excellent and would fit right in to the neighborhood. He appreciated the 3 -D renderings and found those to be helpful. Vice Chair Chong agreed. He found the project easy to support and appreciated the neighbor support. Chair Emberson was impressed with the modular design and thought that it looked really great. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 14 6/6/13 ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the request for 266 Karen Way is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5 -0. 8. 40 DELMAR DRIVE: File No. 713021; Ashley Anderson and Jennifer Wang, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and attached garage to an existing single -story house. The floor area of the house would be increased by 1,967 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 4,907 square feet, with an additional 595 square feet of garage space. Assessor's Parcel No. 055 - 211 -29. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one -story single - family dwelling on property located at 40 Delmar Drive. The project would add a second story to the house, containing a master bedroom suite, family room, two bedrooms and one bathroom. A new laundry room and foyer would be added to the first floor. An existing attached carport would be removed and a new two -car garage would be added to a different section of the house. One new skylight is proposed. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,967 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 4,907 square feet, with an additional 595 square feet of garage space, which would be less than the floor area ratio for this site. The addition would increase the lot coverage on the site by 826 square feet to 4,315 square feet (13.7 %), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -1 zone. Ron Sutton, architect, said that he inherited the project from the prior architect and they tried to come up with a design that would be more acceptable to the neighbors and the Board. He said that they eliminated the need for a side yard variance by redesigning the garage and the floor area exception was eliminated by removing several rooms from the second floor and reducing the size of the master bedroom and bathroom, which also helped create different levels and visual interest. He said that the ridge was pulled back eight feet and the roof lowered a total of 18 inches to help reduce the volume of the house further. Mr. Sutton said that the prior plan had a massive deck and that was reduced as well in order to create more privacy for the neighbors. He said that they addressed the neighbors' issues by pulling back the master bathroom by 3 feet and lowering the roof 6 inches and were therefore able to reach an agreement with the neighbors. He stated that they contacted 11 neighbors and 6 neighbors supported the new design, 3 did not respond and 2 still had objections. He noted that the project was now 200 square feet under the FAR, whereas the prior design was over. Mr. Sutton mentioned that in the process of pulling back the master bathroom by three feet, 36 square feet were added in another area, but overall the project was still under the FAR. The public hearing was opened. Noel Isaac submitted a letter to the Board and he clarified that he had not been in contact with the architect or the owners during the process of revising the current plans. He urged the Board to consider the comments made during the last review, as he felt that the comments were still TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 15 6/6/13 relevant to the current design. In his view, the new home was still too large for the lot and he felt that it would loom over the neighborhood and create upward light pollution. Vice Chair Chong asked Mr. Isaac if his view would be impacted by the project. Mr. Isaac said that his view would not be impacted but he felt that the sheer size of the home would dominate the neighborhood. Chair Emberson said that this was a flagpole lot and that the entire area must be counted toward floor area ratio and Planning Manager Watrous confirmed that information. Ed Dubost stated that he had reviewed the plans several times and felt that the project would have no, or minimal, impact on his property and he had no objections. Mr. Sutton confirmed that he did not contact Mr. Isaac, but only contacted the neighbors directly adjacent to the property. He stated that the immediate neighbors would be most affected by the new home and did not think it would be looming. He stated that there was another home in the area that looms over the neighborhood but this house would not. He said that he understood Mr. Isaac's concern, but did not see how this new design would duplicate the problem of the other home. Vice Chair Chong asked about the removal of a tree. Mr. Sutton replied that there was an agreement with a neighbor to remove several trees that would be honored. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Chong said that he had not been involved in the prior application but had reviewed the minutes of the previous meetings. He said that he could not imagine a taller project and felt that lowering of the roof height by six inches would make a big difference in this case. He thought that it was great that the neighbors have reached a compromise and he did not think that the design would stand out among other two -story homes in the vicinity. He said that he visited 695 Hilary Drive and could hardly see the story poles through the vegetation. He said that the house at 30 Del Mar Drive clearly looms over Mr. Isaac's home, but the downhill neighbors would not really be impacted by this new design. He said that coming to the project fresh with no prior history, he found it easy to get behind and support. Boardmember Kricensky said that Vice Chair Chong would have had to see the prior design to understand its problems. He said that this was a good piece of architecture that would reduce the mass and break up what was previously proposed to be a big block. He said that the prior design looked out of proportion and the new design made a huge difference. Boardmember Cousins said that looking at it for the first time, he found the lower floor headroom quite generous at 9'6 ". He said that the horizontal line that would run around the lower floor would accentuate the height and tend to make it look bigger. He thought that there was room to reduce the height if needed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 16 6/6/13 Boardmember Tollini said that he was also looking at the project from a fresh perspective. He said that he really appreciated when neighbors worked together to resolve disputes. He said that there were no variances requested and he did not find the house to be impactful on the neighborhood. He stated that the regulations allow this property to count the entire lot toward their FAR and he did not understand the objections to the project based on numbers alone. He said that he did not see any impacts on the neighbors and he was ready to support as proposed. Chair Emberson said that the new design was so much better than the old one and showed what good architecture could accomplish. She thought that the project was nicely situated on the lot and would be a fine addition to the neighborhood. She said that the design issues seemed to have been resolved and she was comfortable approving the project. Boardmember Kricensky asked about the feeling of the other Boardmembers about the 9'6" ceiling height issue brought up by Boardmember Cousins, adding that if it were brought down, he did not think that it would have an impact on the neighborhood. Vice Chair Chong said that he was less concerned with the actual height and more concerned that an agreement had been reached with the neighbors. Planning Manager Watrous recommended an additional condition of approval that the application, as approved, would reflect that the master bathroom has been pulled back 3 feet and that the roof had been lowered six inches as shown on the plans as submitted at the meeting. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the request for 40 Del Mar Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with revised plans indicating the master bathroom had been pulled back 3 feet and that the roof had been lowered six inches, as shown on the plans submitted at the meeting. Vote: 4 -1 (Cousins opposed). 9. 510 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21304; Paul Wong and Julie Huh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a new single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The new two -story dwelling would result in and a total floor area of 4,002 square feet and lot coverage of 16.2% which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage in the RO -2 zone. The house would extend to within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot front yard setback required in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 091 -24. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single- family dwelling on property located at 510 Ridge Road. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single- family dwelling. An existing detached accessory building will also be demolished as part of this project. The upper level of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen and a powder room. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms, three more bathrooms, and a family room. A two -car garage would be situated at the upper level. The TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 17 6/6/13 driveway would be reconfigured and a new yard and play area would be installed in the location of the existing driveway and accessory building. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,002 square feet, which would be 63 square feet less than the 4,065 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 3,343 square feet (16.2 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage. A portion of the proposed house would be situated within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is also requested for reduced front yard setback. Paul Wong and Julie Huh, owners, thanked everyone for working with them over the past two years on their plans for their home. Mr. Wong said that they had reached out to and met with as many neighbors as they could, including planners and architects, in order to be sensitive and fair to those impacted by their project. He said that they spent several years looking for the right neighborhood for their young family and they were anxious to settle in. He said that they chose this architectural finn that was very well known with a lot of experience in developing and designing hillside homes. Mrs. Huh thanked the neighbors for their patience, support and cooperation and said that they looked forward to being good neighbors. Bob Swatt and Miya Muraki, architects, expressed interest in saving time and went right to the most important issues. Mr. Swatt explained that the project started two years ago and went through 9 different iterations. He described the numerous outreach efforts that were made to the most affected neighbor, Mr. McDermott, who was presented with numerous schemes over the course of two years in order to satisfy his objections. Mr. Swatt stated that other neighbors have had legitimate concerns that were being addressed and mitigated through landscaping, louvers and sloped skylights that had been dramatically reduced in their diameter. He said that the owners were also willing to have opaque glass in the garage door so that light would not seep through in order to mitigate light concerns. He said that the owners have worked for two years to make dramatic, substantial changes to the design and worked very hard to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Swatt stated that that there would be a slight loss of view from Mr. McDermott's residence but more view would be gained in other areas. The public hearing was opened. Michael Rex, architect representing Bruce Breitman, said that the project would impact multiple neighbors as referenced in the staff report. Mr. Rex stated that the project did not conform to the Town's design standards and was not ready to be approved. He presented photos of the area and highlighted the loss of view from his client's home, including potential light intrusion. He said that they were also concerned regarding the removal of vegetation that currently screens the existing home. He proposed five changes: reduction in glass, removing skylights, a better landscaping plan and evidence of proper screening of the home, darker colors and a rethought palette, and reconsider down lights in the eaves. He stated that they were willing to work with the applicant and requested direction from the Board that the applicant work with them to resolve these issues. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 18 6/6;13 Riley Hurd, attorney representing Bruce Breitman, spoke in regard to the light pollution issue. He referenced the section of the zoning ordinance stating that proposed lighting should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution. Mr. Riley stated that light would escape the proposed louvers and be in their view. He urged the Board to consider other solutions such as using wanner color tones, architectural changes and landscaping. He stated that the project was not ready to be approved and needed to be continued to address these issues. Bruce Breitman stated that he has lived in his home for more than 24 years and has enjoyed the nighttime view for all those years without interference. He stated that the applicants never approached him and he had invited them to come up and see his view. He said that every primary living space of his home would be affected by this new project and this would be an extreme invasion of his nighttime view. He said that he felt threatened to the point of hiring an attorney, an architect and a landscape architect in order to protect his nighttime views. He said that he would like to work with the owners on a friendly basis to reach a solution. Bob McDermott stated that he had not met with the owners until 2012 and was unaware of prior design iterations. He said that he bought his home 29 years ago and intended to live there forever and enjoyed by his extended family. He wished the owners all the best and said that he only wanted to resolve the issues. He stated that the existing home was built higher than would be approved today and does not justify a new project that would be as tall. He said that he would lose some view from his living room and gain some view in other areas but was concerned. Paula Little said that the applicants have gone out of their way to incorporate the neighbors in every step of the project. She said that the architect was outstanding and known throughout the world. She felt that residents cannot get everything they want, as things change over time. She believed that the light pollution issue had been addressed. She encouraged the Board to approve the plan. Anne Woods stated that she has known the applicants Julie since they bought the house and said that they communicated extensively throughout the process. She looked at the plans and liked the house. She also felt that the owners showed integrity in working with the neighbors who would be affected by their project. Pam Peterson stated that she used to live at 510 Ridge Road where her family had built the existing house. She said that the applicants encouraged her to be a part of the process as she had a long history with the neighborhood. Ms. Peterson stated that you could not please all the people all the time and there would always be some issues as it was not possible to completely hide the house. She encouraged approval of the project as the owners have worked hard over the past two years at being great neighbors. Mr. Swatt stated that they plan on reusing the foundation and footprint of the existing building so that was why it was located where it was and required a variance. He said that the skylights would not be seen by anybody and were important to the design. He provided samples of products to be used and photos of buildings with the same colors as proposed for this project to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 19 6/6/13 address questions about the colors from some of the neighbors. In his opinion, views would be improved, enhanced and a "win'' for Mr. McDermott. Ms. Huh clarified that they purchased the home in 2010 and it would be three years in November that they have been working on the project. They wanted to keep the existing foundation in order to limit expenses and add just a little more space to the living areas including two additional bedrooms. The current plan's roofline is below the roof of the existing home and that the existing roof was much taller than what they were asking for. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that for Mr. McDermott, the issue appeared to be more of a view blockage than a light pollution issue and required a give and take. He said that Mr. McDermott's point that the old house would not be approved by today's guidelines struck a chord with him, but the Town also often presumes that a new home would be approved if the project stays within the existing building boundaries. He did not necessarily agree with Mr. Swatt that the view would be better for Mr. McDermott, but he did feel that it would essentially even out. He was not sure whether the parapet wall was justified. He felt that light pollution was the bigger issue, particularly from the proposed dining room. He said that the upper level would be wrapped in glass and highly visible from Mr. Breitman's home. He was not comfortable relying on louvers to cut off the light pollution, but noted that there is existing glazing in that part of the house. He noted that the house is not lit up at night now because no one is living in the house. He said that he was still uncomfortable with the light pollution and felt that it was problematic. He said that the other light pollution would most likely be minimal due to the parapet wall and the sloped skylights that were a nice part of the design but not a necessity. Boardmember Cousins doubted whether light would not emanate from the opaque garage glass door. Boardmember Tollini stated that opaque glass would not allow light to pass through. Planning Manager Watrous stated that opaque glass should not allow any light to shine through, and if there were any question, there could be a performance standard added requiring zero light emanation. Boardmember Cousins said that there would be a lot of glass on the uphill side of the house, including the dining room, from which light could emanate. He stated that louvers can be effective. He believed that Mr. Breitman would lose more view than he gained. He proposed eliminating the long parapet and tilting the skylights to gain back some view. Vice Chair Chong said that the project was a handsome design and he liked the colors and materials. He appreciated the outreach toward the neighbors but thought that there was still potential for more work to be done, specifically, in regard to the excess glass and nighttime light pollution. He said that he is not a big fan of louvers to solve light problems and he thought that the view would be somewhat improved for Mr. McDermott. He was not sure if the new design should have to correct the mistakes of the existing house, but he felt that there was a great opportunity to open up a new view. Overall, he thought that this was a good design but that there may be some more work to be done. He also voiced concern over some of the suggestion for changes from the neighbors, noting that residents do not get to design their neighbors' homes. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 20 6/6/13 Chair Emberson said that she was concerned about the light color of the roof and its reflectivity, but noted that it did not look too light in the photograph of material samples. She said that a house with a light color on a side of a hill could stick out and maybe should be darker. She did not think that that much glass was needed in the dining room and the windows could be reduced. She agreed with Boardmember Cousins that the removal of one skylight could open up a new view corridor. Boardmember Kricensky asked the architect about the reason for the two -foot change in floor level from the living room to the dining room. Mr. Swatt advised that it was for the homeowner to enjoy the view, as she was not very tall. Chair Emberson said that there was a big light pollution issue as Mr. Hurd stated. She suggested dropping the floor, with other little tweaks, in order to reach a consensus. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with the light pollution issue and thought that it was substantial, but could be fixed. He said that they could not design a home with no windows, noting that the Hillside Design Guidelines were not a law and were subjective as to what works. He said that the main concern was the dining room windows, with lights looking out to the neighbors. He said that the windows for the lower level hallway shine light from an active corridor and could possible be mitigated with landscaping. He said that the skylight, tinted and tilted at 30 degrees, would not be an issue. He said that the windows in the hallway and the north side of the dining room need to be mitigated. Boardmember Tollini said that Mr. Breitman's home has more light pollution issues. He said that the applicant would have a personal incentive to mitigate the view into, and light emanating from, the lower hallway as it was a private space and a bedroom hallway. Chair Emberson said that her main concern were the dining room and the skylight that may not be necessary. Boardmember Kricensky added that it was a very nice design and he liked the materials and colors. He felt that the roofing color was not too light. Chair Emberson thought that it would be a lovely house and that they were very close with just a few tweaks to the design. Boardmember Tollini said that specifically, the tweaks were related to glazing, concerns about the dining room, the parapet /skylight and the bedroom hallway. Chair Emberson agreed and said that the louvers were not acceptable and there was a definite need for a reduction in glazing. Boardmember Kricensky said that in terms of height, he felt that the previous home did not set the precedent. Chair Emberson concurred, and said that the Board would continue to protect views and follow the current guidelines. Planning Manager Watrous said that the meeting would need to be continued to the July 18th, 2013 meeting because the first meeting in July would be cancelled. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 21 6/6/13 ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to continue the application for 510 Ridge Road to the July 18, 2013 meeting. Vote: 5 -0. G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #8 OF THE MAY 29 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2013 meeting, as written. Vote: 4 -0 -1. (Tollini abstained). H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 22 6/6/13 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Design Review Board June 20, 2013 • 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #10 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chair Emberson, Vice Chair Chong, Boardmembers Cousins, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: None Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Goldstein ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 2235 CENTRO EAST STREET: File No. 712127; Lucy Zhang, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The applicant proposes to expand the existing ground floor living room toward the front with additions to the western side of the house. A new master bedroom suite, deck and vaulted ceiling over the ground level living room would be added to the second floor of the house. The project would increase the floor area by 499 square feet to a total of 3,171 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 23.8 %, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 141 -13 . Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 21 VIA SAN FERNANDO: File No. 21316; Jane Brayton and Dan Peterson, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. Minor additions would be constructed at locations around the existing house and garage. The project would increase the floor area by 679 square feet to a total of 3,03 8 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 3,604 square feet (30.9 %) of the site, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 038- 343-06. Approved 5 -0 Design Review Board Action Minutes June 20, 2013 Page 1 3. 25 VENUS COURT: File No. 713051; Victor Barkhodarian, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The house would be expanded to include three new bedrooms, two bathrooms, a dining room, game room and a new garage. The project would increase the floor area by 1,612 square feet to a total of 2,855 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 3,678 square feet (15.5 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 281 -55. Approved 5 -0 4. 1877 CENTRO WEST STREET: File No. 21314; Steven and Jennifer Lamar, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review to legalize as -built construction of walls for an existing single- family dwelling, with a Variance for excess wall height. The walls that have been constructed around the perimeter of the site have a maximum measured height of 13 feet, which is taller than the 6 foot maximum wall height allowed in the R -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 071 -16. Continued to 7118113 5. 545 SILVERADO DRIVE: File No. 713029; Brian and Sue Peery, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling. Additions would be made to the upper and ground levels of the house, with raised rooflines and a new garage at the front of the property. The floor area of the house would be increased by 564 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 2,222 square feet, with an additional 504 square feet of garage space, and would increase the lot coverage on the site by 561 square feet to 2,118 square feet (19.3 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 082 -23. Continued to 7118113 MINT TTF C 6. Regular Meeting of June 6, 2013 Adopted as amended 5 -0 ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. Design Review Board Action Minutes June 20, 2013 Page 2 DIGEST TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 26, 2013 — 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:43 PM Present: Chair Tollini, Vice Chair Weller, Commissioner Welner Absent: Commissioner Corcoran ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do-so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 110 SOLANO STREET: APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF A SEASONAL RENTAL UNIT PERMIT TO OPERATE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING TWO- FAMILY DWELLING AS A SEASONAL RENTAL UNIT; FILE #SRU2013 -01; Courtney and Sandy Anderson, Owners /Applicants; Joe and Cathy Haraburda, Appellants; Assessor's Parcel Number: 059- 143-35 [DW] Partially Granted Appeal 3 -0 MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —Regular Meeting of May 8, 2013 Approved as Amended 3 -0 ADJOURNMENT 9:20 PM a061213 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes June 26, 2013 Page 1 NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR DESIGN REVIEW Boas MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 412013 HAS BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013 DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY y.