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 2013-08-09
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of August 5 — 9, 2013 Ti 1k» rn-n 1. Letter - Scott Anderson - Proposed Gazebo - 6 Juno Road 2. Letter - Arthur Giovara - Courtesy Notice Regarding Trestle Glen Circle Subdivision 3. Letter - CalTrans North Bay Counties Office - Petition regarding Neds Way and Tiburon Blvd. 4. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - July 2013 5. Monthly Report - Design Review - July 2013 Agendas & Minutes 6. Agenda - Planning Commission - August 14, 2013 7. Agenda - Design Review Board - August 15, 2013 8. Minutes - Design Review Board - July 18, 2013 9. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - August 1, 2013 Regional o a) None Agendas & Minutes b) Agenda - Marin LAFCo - August 8, 2013 * Council Only DIGEST Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P 415.435.73?3 E 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Community Development Department August 5, 2013 Mr. Kevin Hessel Executive Editor The Ark Newspaper P. 0. Box 1054 Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Your letter of August 1, 2013 regarding a proposed gazebo at 6 Juno Road, Tiburon Dear Mr. Hessel: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2013, addressed to members of the Tiburon Design Review Board regarding the Board's July 18, 2013 approval of a proposed gazebo at 6 Juno Road. We agree that the agenda for that meeting should have referenced the proposed gazebo. Although staff could have approved the gazebo without a Board hearing, we instead included it in the staff report for the fence variance, which was part of the same application and which did require Board action. Given that decision, the word "gazebo" should have appeared on the agenda. Staff will place an item proposing rescission of the Design Review Board's action on the gazebo on the Design Review Board agenda for August 15, 2013. Very truly yours, �1 Scott Anderson Director of Community Development cc: Design Review Board Town Attorney 1 ,:' /V AUG -07 -2013 09:34 From: r F-liffimi Date: August d, 2013 Courtesy Notice Regarding Trestle Glen Circle Subdivision Dear Property owner, WMAI M- 119f:3 We will be starting the subdivision grading and improvement phase the 12, 2013. Page: 1/1 / • of August Trestle Glen Circle is a three lot subdivision project with access 000urring f om Trestle Glen Blvd. at Juno Road. Construction of the improvements will consist of landslide repair, grading, of -site sewer main extension, creation of a subdivision road and other utilities improvements. No house designs have been Filed or approved and they are not part of the work that is occurring at this tune. At this time no parking associated with this project will take place on neighborhood streets. Weather permitting this improvement phase should be completed by the en � of October 2013. 4 o ,A/ Ob, Sincerely, Trestle Glen Terrace Arthur Giovara 5e k 1� ESQ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5900 FAX (510) 286 -5903 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov August 5, 2013 Mr. Nicholas T. Nguyen, P.E. Director of Public Works /Town Engineer 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Nguyen: • Flea your power! Be energy efficient! This is to acknowledge your letter including copies of petitions by local residents regarding their request that Department of Transportation (Caltrans) collaborates with the Town to consider pedestrian safety enhancement at the intersection of Tiburon Blvd. (State Route 13 1) and Neds Way in the Town of Tiburon. We will investigate the concern and study the intersection and will let you know when the study is completed. Please be advised that in order to consider the crossing generated by school children, field observation and traffic /pedestrian volume collection will be performed after Labor Day in September. Thank you for cooperation with us on the operation of State Highway system. Sincerely, PHILLIPE H. VAN Senior Transportation Engineer Caltrans Office of Traffic - North Bay Counties "Caltrans improves mobility across California" DIGEST IV, 0 O ti r r r to CV r �} C%4 1� O LO U") M N (D M (fi !U W Q Z M N '© � w F' cn t- ..r r O O r r O O W) O aD r O O r LO O N r Z -5 r O r- c- M N O CN O N lu w Q � N O r r 00 O O iir ' Q N c- r M r- N Q T- N O r LO M M O Lm!] LL r M r O LO � O O Z O N O M (0 O O Cfl r W t— w z Q O a Q z 1-- w Q. c? cn a W a F- Z Q a > x W a U. W LL LL Ea- cn N W a Q Q p �-- DIGEST IV, TOWN OF TIBURON � IG EST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT jr, DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED 2012 ■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 1 1 ■ MAJOR ADDITIONS /ALTERATIONS 0 0 ■ MINOR ADDITIONS /ALTERATIONS 0 0 ■ (not eligible for Staff Review) ■ SIGN PERMITS 1 1 ■ TREE PERMITS 5 1 ■ VARIANCE REQUESTS 0 0 ■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS 2 0 ■ EXTENSION OF TIME 0 0 STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 17 5 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL 1 0 Bruce Breitman appeal from Design Review Board approval of a new single- family dwelling at 510 Ridge Road REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: August 5, 2013 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA DIGEST 4 fa Agenda - Regular Meeting Tiburon Planning Commission August 14, 2013 — 7:30 PM TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Weller, Vice Chair Welner, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Kulik, Commissioner Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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. 1704 TIBURON BOULEVARD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN THE VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL ZONE); FILE #11304; K2 Properties, LLC, Owner; Decker Bullock Realty, Inc., Applicant; Assessor's Parcel Number 059- 102-17 [SA] MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —Regular Meeting of July 24, 2013 Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2013 Page 1 ADJOURNMENT Future Agenda Items 1760 -1762 Vistazo West Street Conditional Use Permit (8/28) 20 Upper Cecilia Way Precise Plan Amendment ( 8/28) a0814/13 Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 2013 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Regular Meeting Design Review Board August 15, 2013 7:00 P.M. Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 1. 6 JUNO ROAD: File No. 21317; Pensco Trust Company, Owner; Rescission of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for construction of a gazebo. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 272 -04. [KO] PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 72 MAIN STREET: File No. 51306; Zelinsky Properties, Owner; Couloir Wines & Straight Line Wine, applicants; Sign Pennit, with a Major Exception, to install three (3) new signs for a wine tasting business. The applicant is proposing 43.0 square feet of sign area in lieu of the maximum sign area for this building of 21.1 square feet, and is therefore requesting a major sign area exception. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 102 -04. [DW] 3. 21 GILMARTIN DRIVE: File No. 713045; Tenny Doone, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single- family dwelling. The new two - story house would include four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, study, theatre, an attached two -car garage and a detached one -car garage. The project would include 3,660 square feet of floor area and lot coverage of 3,400 square feet (20.5 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 253 -32. [KO] Design Review Board August 15, 2013 Page 1 MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of August 1, 2013 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board August 15, 2013 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Design Review Board August 1, 2013 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #12 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Kricensky and Tollini (7:20) Absent: Boardmember Emberson Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 1. 65 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 713043; Andrea Hong and James Parsons, Owners; Dan Mihalovich and Judy Stern, Appellants; Adoption of resolution partially granting appeal of Planning Staff's decision to conditionally approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for construction of a fence for an existing single- family dwelling. Assessor's Parcel No. 038 - 301 -35. Resolution adopted 3 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 10 SEAFIRTH ROAD: File No. 21319; Dion Cominos and Tracey Gross, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a spa for an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced front yard setback. The spa would be situated within 18 feet of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot front yard setback required for a spa in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039- 092 -06. Approved 3 -0 3. 85 SEAFIRTH ROAD: File No. 21320; Sara and Paul Recktenwald, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage. Additions would be made to the upper and lower levels of the house, including a new garage at the front of the property. The floor area of the house would increase to 3,189 square feet. The lot coverage on the site would increase to 3,325 square feet (24.9 %), which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage in the RO -2 zone. The garage would extend to within 4 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 5 foot, 6 inch front yard setback for this property. A new spa would be installed 4 feet from the left side property line, which is less than the 15 foot side yard setback required for a spa in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039- 101 -32. Approved 4 -0 Design Review Board Action Minutes August 1, 2013 Page 1 4. 2370 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 712109; Paul and Kathryn Blystone, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling. The new two -story house would include three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room and a two -car garage. The project would increase the floor area by 1,408 square feet to a total of 2,798 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 2,984 square feet (34.96 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 -191 - 05. Continued to 915113 MINUTES 5. Regular Meeting of July 18, 2013 Approved 4 -0 ADJOURNMENT At 8:35 P.M. Design Review Board Action Minutes August 1, 2013 Page 2 Uti zi MINUTES #11 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 189 2013 The meeting was opened at 7:07 p.m. by Chair Emberson. A. ROLL CALL 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 Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous recommended that applicants' presentations be limited to 10 minutes and public comments to 3 minutes due to the length of the agenda. D. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to nominate Vice Chair Chong as Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion carried: 5 -0. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) to nominate Boardmember Cousins as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion carried: 5 -0. E. OLD BUSINESS 1. 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. The application was first TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/18/13 considered at the June 6, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring residents raised concerns about potential view blockage and lighting impacts from the proposed project. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, particularly with the amount of glazing on the house and issues of visual mass of nighttime light pollution. The applicant was directed to prepare revised project plans and the application was continued to the July 18, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The applicant has now submitted revised plans that include the following changes to the previous project design: • The skylights have been reduced in depth to 18 inches and been angled 30 degrees away from the properties uphill from the site. • The parapet that was situated between the skylights and the front of the house has been eliminated. • The north- facing dining room window has been reduced in with from 13 feet, 8 inches to 3 feet, 8 inches. Vertical wood screens are proposed in front of the lower level corridor windows. The garage door has been changed to a "back- painted, etched (opaque and non - reflective) glass" material. The revised plans would increase the floor of the proposed house by 6 square feet to be 4,008 square feet, which would be 57 square feet less than the 4,065 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would still 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 still requested for excess lot coverage. The revised house design 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 still requested for reduced front yard setback. Bob Swatt, architect, described the issues raised at the June 6th meeting and explained the project changes. He said that the skylights were reduced in size to 18 inches wide and would now be sloped so they cannot be seen. He said that the skylight shroud was reduced in height by 6 inches. He said that they added a wood screen at the lower level to reduce the visibility of the windows, and now glazing would not be seen due to the depth and angle of the wood screen. He said that they reduced the width of the dining room window to 3 feet, 8 inches, which would be roughly the size of the existing window in that location. He showed photos of views from 601 Ridge Road and noted that the view that would be gained would be 3 times the size of the view that would be lost. He said that the base of Angel Island would now be' visible, as well as Ayala Cove, each of which are not currently visible. He showed some photos of views from 600 Ridge Road and stated that there would not be much of a change in those views. He showed the front elevation at night currently and proposed and noted that the lighting would actually be less in the proposed front elevation. He said that there are significantly more windows facing the neighbors currently than there will be after the building is constructed. He said that they propose to reuse the existing foundation to save money and is also more sustainable. He said that they could add a wing wall to the side of the building to prevent glare to 600 Ridge Road, but this would reduce the views somewhat for 601 Ridge Road. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 2 7/18/13 The public hearing was opened. Miles Berger said he was asked to take a look at the design of this house by a neighbor. He said that his client's home is quite a bit higher than others and the skylights and lighting were their main concern. He said that the applicant had completely solved all of the issues with lighting and skylights and the skylights would be completely invisible to neighbors. He stated that the design would lower the overall height of the existing house, which would further enhance the views of the neighbors. He believed that the design was beautiful and urged an approval of the project. He said that reusing existing foundations is one of the first things he looks at when talking to his own clients. Bruce Breitman said that the project sits in the center of his view of San Francisco. He was concerned that the nighttime lighting would interfere with his view. He thanked the applicant for making the changes to the plan and noted that they had partially addressed his concerns. He said that there were only a few more issues to deal with and his attorney and the architect would address these issues. He pointed out that the applicant never came to his home to see the view, but he could support the project with the changes he requested tonight. Michael Heckman, architect representing Mr. Breitman, said that the proposed landscaping still presented some issues for his client. He stated that the three California Bay Laurel trees would grow too tall and would block the view from Mr. Breitman's home. He stated that the existing redwood tree could become a view blockage issue and requested a lower - growing substitution for those four trees. He said that the existing 30 inch fir tree provides some screening of the existing house and he did not think that it should be removed. He showed an aerial photo of the neighborhood and pointed out pine trees that have gotten very close to their complete life term and need to be removed within five years, which would completely expose the house to Mr. Breitman and he was concerned about light pollution. Mr. Heckmann stated that there were also concerns that the house does not conform with the hillside guidelines and he recommended lowering the entire structure, which could be done and still accomplish the applicants' goals. Riley Hurd, attorney representing Mr. Breitman, asked that the wing wall be added to the project. He said that they also request a screen for the lower window, but the slats need to be specified to have a 31/2 inch gap. He said that the front entry windows also must be addressed and he suggested clerestory windows and if that cannot be done, he requested another screen in that area. He said that he was shocked by the nighttime photos of the view from Mr. Breitman's home and said that they are not a realistic representation because his clients viewed a contractor installing bulbs and taking photos of the area from a ladder. Bob McDermott said that he had four issues with the project: noncompliance with hillside guidelines, encroachment of his view of Raccoon Straits, excessive light from the windows that would impact nighttime views and too many tall trees that could grow into views and lead to disputes in the future. He said that he did not understand why an application for a new house would not conform to the hillside guidelines. It seemed very strange to him to retain the existing foundation. He understood that the applicants would like a view of the Golden Gate Bridge and lowering the home would compromise that, but he felt that the Golden Gate Bridge was incidental to their panoramic view. He said that the lot is challenging but he thought that the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/18/13 owner knew that and should not expect exceptions to be granted to the hillside guidelines. He said that he would like to see the profile of the house lowered. He said that the skylight over the living room could be removed, the skylight over the stairwell be reduced, and the ceiling heights reduced. Pam Peterson said that the Golden Gate Bridge was not incidental to the view but was a very big part of the house's planned view. She said that it is not easy to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to lower the house. She felt that the applicants were trying to be sustainable and reuse and had done an excellent job of trying to accommodate everyone. She pointed out a Japanese maple tree, which is between the houses and is 20 feet tall, that blocks the view from Mr. McDermott's house for the most of the year. She encouraged the Design Review Board to approve the project. Paula Little said that life changes and pointed out that this area used to be cow pasture and is now full of beautiful homes. She said that it is delightful to see different houses come into the area, and it is incredible that they would use the same foundation. She said that the applicants have tried to accommodate neighbors for the past two years and that is a long time and a lot of money to be put into a project. She asked the Design Review Board to let them build the home. Mark Swanson said that he has worked with Swatt Architects and they spend a lot of time studying the neighborhood before building a project. He said that he has built projects in the area on existing foundations and that removing foundations creates a huge burden on a neighborhood. He said that the wood screens were similar to something he is doing on two projects and he said that he was surprised to see the large amount of light reduction that they created. Scott Woods said that he cannot see the house from his home but he thought that it was a beautiful design and would be a great addition to their neighborhood. He thought that everything has been addressed, concessions had been made, and the project should be approved. Jiro Bradanini, landscape architect, agreed that the three proposed bay trees are tall and said that they are rethinking those trees and considering olive trees as a lower canopy tree for that corner. Boardmember Emberson asked what the height would be for those trees. Mr. Bradanini said that the serpentine soil would not allow the trees to reach their mature height, but he expects olive trees to reach about 20 feet in height. He said that there are two fairly significant pittosporum trees that they would like to retain and supplement with additional plantings, and his client would be happy to remove the redwood tree. He noted that the two existing cedar trees have been proposed to be removed because they have no long term value and with their new plantings they would establish a denser screening in that area. Paul Wong, owner, said that they have adhered to the hillside guidelines and would not interrupt any significant or iconic landmark views because the neighbor has a panoramic view. He said that he could not understand what significant view his neighbor has that would necessitate lowering the house. Julie Huh, owner, said that they started working on the project two years ago and the original design had been whittled down. She said that frustration and disappointment had been created at TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 4 7/18/13 each change and they have worked with their neighbors to mitigate concerns. She said light is very important in their home for her family. Mr. Wong said that if the proposed garage was moved to any other location it would block the neighbor's view of Ayala Cove. He said their existing building pad is so far low below the road that if they lowered it more the hours would be much lower than the existing homes. Chair Chong asked if the large tree in the corner would be removed. Mr. Bradanini said that the cedar tree would be removed and replaced with more plantings further up the hill. He noted that the further they move the plantings up the hill the more effective the screening would be. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said he thought that the project was in compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines, as it would be cut into the hillside considerably and lowering it would be an unnatural thing to do if they are going to use the existing foundation. He said that lowering the house would impede the view of the Golden Gate Bridge and he did not believe that it was equitable to trade their view of the Golden Gate Bridge for a neighbor's view of Raccoon Straits. He thought that some minor things could be addressed such as the screening walls and nighttime views. He did not trust the nighttime view photos because they are too easy to manipulate. He pointed out this is a town and there will be some light from side windows and the side windows can be seen now. He thought that the proposed louver detail would work to shield the light, but he would like to know the measurements and the materials to be used. He said that the views of Ayala Cove would be improved from Mr. McDermott's house and he did not think that anyone would see the skylights. Boardmember Tollini said that at the last review of this project he had moderate concerns that could be addressed, primarily the dining room window and light pollution affecting neighbors' views. Most changes were needed on the dining room glazing, and that was addressed by a substantial reduction in glazing. He agreed with Boardmember Kricensky's skepticism about the photos showing nighttime lighting. He appreciated the wing wall idea but did not think that it was a reasonable compromise as it would adversely affect Mr. McDermott's view. He said that substituting olive trees concerned him because olive trees are slow - growing and do not fill in quickly. He agreed that the bay laurels would have been too tall but he was not thrilled with the choice of olive trees. He agreed that the redwood tree could be removed and seemed to be a good solution. He visited the McDermott and Breitman homes twice each, and he felt the project would result in fairly minor intrusions on the views of those houses. He supported the application and said that he might suggest some conditions of approval regarding the landscaping. He said that he really liked the house and felt that the applicants had done a very thoughtful job to design a house that would work for the neighborhood. Boardmember Emberson said that she was surprised when she visited the site to see that the owners have more of a slot view and therefore cannot lower the house. She said that the foundation was already lowered and was dug into the hillside when the house was first built. She agreed that the bay laurels would be too tall and the olive trees might not fill in well, and thought that staff could suggest another tree choice. She said that this is suburbia and not Wyoming and TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 5 7/18/13 that there would be less light intrusion than the neighbors expect, along with a lower roofline. She voiced support of the application with the minor change in the landscape plan. She said the applicant had done everything they were asked to do and cannot be asked to do more. Vice Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that it is an excellent idea to reuse foundations and that lowering the floor levels would be very detrimental to the view. He said that the design meets the hillside guidelines and is stepped into the hillside. He said that the house would improve the views from Mr. McDermott's house. He said that the reduction of the dining room window was substantial, and the depth of the louvers would provide substantial screening from the lighting. Chair Chong agreed and said though that when the construction was over the home would be much better looking and the view will be improved from Mr. McDermott's house. He said that the applicant made a very good effort to reduce light pollution from Mr. Breitman's house and he supported letting staff make suggestions for landscape changes. Boardmember Kricensky asked about the materials to be used for the louvers, and Mr. Swatt said that the louvers would be made of wood and the same material as the siding. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) that the request for 510 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval to remove the redwood tree and replace the bay laurels at discretion of staff with a species that will grow quickly to about 20 -25 feet and provide better screening than olive trees. Vote: 5 -0. 2. 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 fi-ont 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. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single- family dwelling on property located at 545 Silverado Drive. The original project design proposed to expand an upper level master bedroom suite to add closet space, a larger bathroom and a deck off the front. A bridge was to connect the rear of the upper level to the upper portion of the rear yard. An existing carport on the lower level was to be removed and replaced with a new garage closer to the street, connected by a new driveway. A new family room was to be added to the front of the ground floor and a new bedroom would be added to the rear of that level. The rooflines of the house were to be modified, most notably the steeply pitched upper level roofline that would be changed to a shed roof sloping upward toward the front of the site. An existing chimney was to be removed and a new level rear yard area was proposed to the rear of the site. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6 7/18/13 The application was first considered at the June 20, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the owner of the adjacent home at 541 Silverado Drive raised concerns about potential view impacts and the visual massing of the proposed upper level addition. The owner of the home at 549 Silverado Drive raised concerns about privacy impacts from the proposed upper level master bedroom deck and the new ground floor family room and potential drainage impacts. The owner of the home at 11 Sierra Court raised concerns about potential light pollution from the rear of the house and possible drainage or erosion from the project. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, particularly with the visual mass of the upper level addition. The applicant was directed to prepare revised project plans and the application was continued to the July 18, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The applicant has now submitted revised plans that include the following changes to the previous project design: • The proposed upper level addition has been scaled back to extend only approximately 3.5 feet to the rear. The dormer at the center of the existing upper level has been extended to both sides of the upper level. The proposed master bedroom deck has been eliminated. Three new windows would face to the west and two new windows would face east. The proposed garage has been eliminated and the existing carport would remain. The lower floor plan would remain essentially the same as before, with only a 39 square foot addition to the front. There would be no new patio doors leading out from the proposed family room area. The floor area of the house would be increased by 111, 453 square feet less than the previous project design, resulting in a total floor area of 1,769 square feet, with an additional 361 square feet of carport space, which would be less than the floor area ratio for this site. The additions would increase the lot coverage on the site by 39 square feet to 1,235 square feet (14.5 %), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -1 zone. Robert Brockman, designer, said that they made significant design changes based on the Board's comments and discussions with neighbors. He said that the project was scaled down quite a bit since the last proposal and they would no longer add another bedroom and would maintain the character of the existing home. He said that they would keep the existing carport and enclose it instead of building a new garage. He said that the footprint of the house would stay almost the same, with a three foot enclosure added to increase the size of the family room. He said that they would match the existing dormer roof on the upper level to create a master bedroom. He said that they reduced the size of the bedroom windows to reduce privacy issues and requested a small wall 3 -4 feet tall to allow for one more off - street parking space. He said that they replaced the birch trees with crape myrtles that would not rise about 20 feet, and are now adding a total of 39 square feet downstairs and 72 square feet upstairs. Boardmember Emberson asked why stucco was being used, and Mr. Brockman said that the existing house is currently stucco. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7 7/18/13 The public hearing was opened. Chris Hartung said that he had a lot of concerns with the previous design and thanked the applicant for being sensitive to his concerns. With this modest proposal and the changes to the window line and the trees, he said that he fully supported the project. Margarita Perry said that her house is on the downhill slope from the applicant's house. She distributed photos and said that her main concern was the proposed parking pad. She said that the existing parking area is about two feet above grade and very close to the fence line on their common property line. She was concerned about headlights and loss of privacy from vehicles parking on the new pad. She said that enclosing the carport was fine, but she would like to see an eight foot solid wood fence on the property line to prevent headlights coming directly into her living room and master bedroom and safeguard her privacy. She asked if there were any lights above the proposed family room door. Mr. Brockman showed a photo of the site of the parking pad and said that Ms. Perry's house is below and behind it. He said that the plant material on the downslope would remain. He said that he does not like eight foot tall fences between properties and the fence is already six feet tall of solid wood with three feet of lattice above. He said that their intention was never to create a light issue with cars, and by maintaining the plantings they would address that issue. Boardmember Kricensky asked about the relationship of the parking pad to the existing fence. Mr. Brockman said that the pad would be two to four feet above grade at the far end with plantings on top. Boardmember Kricensky was concerned about the fence being high enough to block any light intrusion. Mr. Brockman suggested that they could build a small screen fence along the edge. Boardmember Kricensky commented that it only needed to be 4 -5 feet high to block the headlights of a car. Boardmember Emberson said she noticed that it is very wet in the location near the fence line and asked if they would be willing to swap out photinia plantings for podocarpus. Mr. Brockman said that they could install pittosporum which would do well there and would be denser and larger than podocarpus. Boardmember Emberson pointed out she does not see a lighting plan, and Mr. Brockman pointed to the areas of the plan showing the path lights, landscape lights, and building lights. Boardmember Tollini noted that the light fixture would be next to the family room door and not on top. - Boardmember Emberson asked if they would be interested in wood siding, and Mr. Brockman said that the applicant did not mind and he did not feel strongly either way. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Cousins said that many issues were resolved with the uphill neighbors. He said that architecturally the house lost something, but he had no issues. He thought that a low fence near the parking pad would help. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/18/13 Boardmember Emberson said that she has seen neighborhoods change when houses start using stucco instead of wood siding and that wood siding visually helps break up flat areas. She said that she was opposed to a stucco house in this location and thought that wood siding would look a lot better. She said that the other issues appear to be resolved. Boardmember Tollini said that he did not like stucco much either and did not like the color. However, it was not so offensive to him that he would deny the project. Vice Chair Cousins said that stucco is usually connected with the Mediterranean style which this house does not have. Boardmember Tollini agreed but said that he was not going to choose a different color and material for the applicant. He thought that the wall or screen at the end of the driveway was a good idea. He said that this was an extremely modest proposal and he supported it, but he did not understand why there was such a tall window in the shower. Boardmember Kricensky commended the applicant and neighbors for working together. He pointed out that this is a tract home and was difficult to look at as an architect. He said that there was no architectural character to the house and it would help to see some character. He noted that the roof pitches are wrong on the roof plan and need to be corrected. Boardmember Emberson said that she was disappointed that the opportunity to build something nice was not being taken. She said that she would like to at least see wood siding to give it some interest. Chair Chong said that he was surprised to see such a dramatic change in the application. He did not see how headlights could get through the shrubbery and the fence, but was not against the additional wall. He said that he was not against stucco and pointed out that it can be used beautifully. He said that the style may be suited better with a different siding but he did not want to require that as a conditional of approval. Boardmember Kricensky said that he was not attached to stucco versus wood, but saw it rather as an issue of style and design. Boardmember Tollini said that his issue was with the color and not the materials, but he had a hard time saying that they must change the color. He agreed that the architecture of the house could be more thoughtful. Boardmember Emberson said that she likes stucco but this house was poorly designed and she could not support it. Vice Chair Cousins said that the initial proposal was much more satisfactory than the current revision and the yellow color would make it stand out more. He said that the house should be painted more of an earthtone and it would be better with the wood siding. Mr. Brockman suggested doing a split with a lower level in stucco and an upper level with wood siding. He also said they would be glad to change the color to a darker earthtone color. The Boardmembers all agreed that this would help. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/18/13 ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Cousins) that the request for 545 Silverado Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the following additional conditions of approval: to update the project to reflect the revised western elevation plans and tree changes submitted at the meeting; to construct a 4 -5 foot tall screening wall along the end of the parking pad; to replace the photinia plantings with podocarpus or pittosporum,; to replace upper level stucco with wood siding; and to change the color to a darker earthtone, to be reviewed by staff. Vote: 5 -0. 3. 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. Boardmember Tollini was recused from the item. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to legalize the as -built construction of walls and fences for an existing single- family dwelling on property located at 1877 Centro West Street. A series of concrete walls have been constructed on the front, side and rear property lines of the site. The walls vary in height, with a maximum measured height above grade of 13 feet. As the maximum wall height allowed within required setbacks is 6 feet, a variance is requested for excess wall height. A new 8 foot, 10 inch entry gate is also proposed as part of this application. The application was first considered at the June 20, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the applicant took responsibility for the project and explained the reasons that the property owners desired the walls and fences. The Design Review Board indicated that it could not make the findings for the requested variance for the walls as constructed, as the hardship in complying with the maximum wall and fence height requirement appeared to be self - created. The Board discussed possible design solutions that would bring the project into closer compliance with the maximum height requirements and made several suggestions. The applicant was directed to prepare revised project plans and the application was continued to the July 18, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The applicant has now submitted revised plans that include the following changes to the as -built walls and fences: • Concrete, wood or stone permanent structures (shown on the plans as "planters /benches ") would be installed at intervals adjacent to various points along the retaining walls. The structures would be 3 feet deep and vary in height to create measured wall and fence heights not greater than 6 feet in most locations. • The four sections of the fence on the eastern side of the property that were the most offensive have been reduced in height to 6 feet. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 10 7/18/13 • The entry gate has been redesigned with pillars on either side of the gate that would be 8 feet, 8 inches tall. Portions of the fencing along the property lines and the proposed entry gate would still exceed 6 feet in height. As a result, a variance is still required for excess wall and fence height. Mark Swanson, contractor, said that he worked with staff to make all of the changes recommended by the Board. He said that the two issues were the variance for excess wall height and the request to build the entry gate with columns. He described the improvements in front of the walls and said that they reduced the panels as suggested by the Board. He said that they would like to not be required to put in a planter in the area by the office window to allow light into that area. He said that the proposed entry columns and entry gate were originally two inches higher with a stone arch but they removed the arch so the top of the columns would now align with the top of the grade. He did not think that the columns would add mass or bulk because they would blend in with the overall stonework. Boardmember Emberson asked for the height of that area. Mr. Swanson said that the columns would be eight feet high and the gate seven feet high. There were no public comments. Chair Chong asked if there was landscaping along the inside of the north wall. Mr. Swanson said that a condition of the original proposal was to plant trees along that wall. He said that they talked to all of the neighbors and no one had any concerns regarding the entry gate. Boardmember Emberson said that she was glad to see that they found a way to lower the four sections of the wall. She did not see why the entry gate should not be lower. Vice Chair Cousins said that it may be possible to relax the requirements for the planter as requested, but he thought that the gate should be redesigned to be a maximum height of six feet. Boardmember Kricensky though that they could make the findings to eliminate the planter as requested. He said that because, the building is so high it would be overpowering to have the entry columns so high. He said that it would be acceptable if it was shorter as more of a continuation of the fence. Chair Chong agreed that the columns and gate should be shorter and that the planter in the back would not be visible and could be removed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) that the request for 1877 Centro West Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval and the additional condition of approval to eliminate the proposed planter on Sheet A6.0 section G. Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Tollini recused). Boardmember Tollini returned to the meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 11 7/18/13 F. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 4. 6 JUNO ROAD: File No. 713051; Pensco Trust Company, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a fence for an existing single- family dwelling, with a Variance for excess fence height. A new 8 foot tall wooden fence would be constructed along the rear of the property. The proposed fence would be taller than the 6 foot maximum wall height allowed in the R -1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 272 -04. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new gazebo and a new wooden fence with a variance for excess fence height on property located at 6 Juno Road in the Belveron East neighborhood. The property is currently developed with a single family dwelling. The patio gazebo would be located in the rear yard near the existing home at a height of nine feet, six inch (9'6"). The proposed fence would be located on the rear property line towards Trestle Glen Boulevard and would have a maximum height of eight feet (8'). The existing fence is currently six feet (6') and would be removed. The proposed eight foot fence would connect to the remaining perimeter six foot (6') fences along the property line. The maximum permitted fence height within a required setback in any zone is six feet (6'). The applicant is therefore requesting a variance for excess fence height, in order to construct an eight foot (8') tall fence on the rear property line. Dierdre McCrohan, Ark Newspaper reporter, said this item was not described properly on the agenda as the description did not include the gazebo that was part of the project. She said that the hearing could be held on the fence but the gazebo must be continued and properly agendized. Planning Manager Watrous said that the gazebo was not included because certain improvements are oftentimes not listed specifically in the notice or agenda description. He said that this is very common and the fact that the agenda description does not include an incidental improvement did not necessitate a continuance. He also noted that a gazebo does not require Design Review Board approval and could be approved at the staff level. He said that notices and agenda descriptions are not generally exhaustive of all incidental improvements. Ms. McCrohan said that this was not about exhaustive detail but rather about an item up for approval that is listed in the staff report but not on the agenda. She said that the agenda is what is subject to the Brown Act and is required to be posted outside Town Hall. Planning Manager Watrous said that he respectfully disagreed with Ms. McCrohan about the adequacy of the agenda description. Jackie Hsu, applicant, said that they are remodeling the house and want to build an 8 foot fence in the back yard to hide cars and people on Trestle Glen Boulevard. There were no public comments. Boardmember Cousins said that this was a reasonable request since Trestle Glen Boulevard is a very busy road. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 12 7/18/13 Boardmember Emberson said that there is a steep drop -off and the need for an eight foot fence made perfect sense in this location. Boardmember Tollini agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that the gazebo would not be impactful and he thought that it was not a critical part of the notice. He said that whenever he goes down Trestle Glen Boulevard he wonders why everyone does not have an eight foot fence. Boardmember Kricensky and Chair Chong agreed with the other Boardmembers. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Emberson) that the request for 6 Juno Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5 -0. 5. 26 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 713039; Suzanna and Nikita Bell, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single- family dwelling. The new two - story house would include four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room and a one -car garage. The project would increase the floor area by 1,901 square feet to a total of 2,861 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 2,421 square feet (28.1 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 -271 -13. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new single- family dwelling on property located at 26 Apollo Road in the Belveron East neighborhood. The property is currently developed with a one -story single family dwelling. The applicant intends to demolish the existing structure and build a new two -story dwelling. The proposed two -story home would include on the lower level an entry foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, mud /laundry room, bathroom, master bedroom suite and a single car garage. The proposed second level would include three bedrooms and a bathroom. Three proposed outdoor patios extend off the front and rear elevations of the proposed home. One patio would extend off the family room in the rear and the other two patios would open up the house in the front at the entry and off of the proposed dining room. New trellises would be installed in the front and side of the home near proposed doors to add architecture details to the home. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,861 square feet, which is the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,421 square feet (28.1 %), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 zone (30.0 %). Nik Bell, owner, thanked the Board and introduced his architect, Jim Rizzo. He said that they really thought a lot about where they wanted to live and settled on Tiburon because it is a wonderful place to live and raise kids. He said that the house on their property is very small and is a very tiny space for him, his wife, and three boys. He said that they had assumed that they would be able to build a larger house on their property when they purchased it. He said that they TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 13 7/18/13 waited a while to learn about their community and become a part of it before planning to build their house. Mr. Bell showed photos of other two -story houses in the neighborhood and said that with three children, they need the yard space. He said that the second story would allow their kids to have the outdoor space to play. He felt that they should be allowed to build a second story because within the neighborhood there are about 20 second story homes. He showed photos of diverse house styles in the neighborhood. He stated that traditional houses in the neighborhood were very small and moving forward the neighborhood is evolving with many different styles. He said that they discussed this with neighbors and looked around the neighborhood for ideas and over 40 homeowners support the project. He then showed a graphic depicting the location of his house surrounded by adjacent neighbors who approve of the project. He understood that there is a lot of opposition from the neighborhood association against the second story, but he said that there is a lot of support for their project as well and the project falls well within all zoning requirements. James Rizzo, architect, said that the current house is very small and his clients want some separate space for the kids and some room to live. He said that they would like their main living spaces on the lower level and the kids' bedrooms on the upper level. He said that upper level living is less impactful to the neighbors. He said that they tried to move as much of the house to the front to provide space in the back of the house and the entire house would comply with all ordinances and criteria. He pointed out that the neighborhood has many different house styles. He said that the second story was moved into the center of the building, would be set back from the front, and would be only 660 square feet, or about 29% of the size of the first floor. He stated that there are other two -story additions larger than that in the area with a larger proportion. He said that they designed the house to be least impactful to neighbors. He said that the windows would be small, and he pointed out a nearby house with large windows and a balcony. He said that they tried to make the garage very small and the house as inviting. He stated that they were not asking for any special treatment or any variances and asked the Board to approve the project. The public hearing was opened. Dana Thor said that they share two - thirds of their fence with the applicants. She said that Belveron is a great neighborhood where the neighbors talk and socialize. She said that she was sad to be here to protest the second story, but felt that it would be an invasion of her privacy and would take away her view of the hillsides. She said that the design would impact every livable room in her house. She pointed out that the subject property is one of the largest lots in the neighborhood and there are many options to build a different house. She showed photos illustrating the impact on her views of Ring Mountain from various areas of her house. She said that the house would create views of a big mass of building instead of views of green space. She said that they remodeled their house and put in an extra tall window to capture the view of Ring Mountain and stated that the story poles show that the second story would completely block that view. Marti Andrews said that she is the currently secretary of the neighborhood association and only opposes second stories in the middle of the neighborhood and not on the periphery of the neighborhood. She said that Belveron is a wonderful community. She said that there are 122 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 14 7/18/13 houses on the flat area of the neighborhood and of those, 66 have had successful one -story remodels. She said that there are 7, not 20, two -story houses in the development and those 7 have been done without privacy or view invasion since they are mostly on the periphery and do not share fences with neighbors. She said that the two -story design for 22 Mercury Avenue was turned down by the Town. She suggested that a lovely house could be built at this location using more yard space. Susan Ross, speaking on behalf of Bill and Francis Melbostad, read their letter. She said that remodels within the interior of the neighborhood should be limited to one story to maintain the charm of the neighborhood. She said that interior parcels typically have multiple adjacent lots which can be tremendously impacted, while lots on the hillside are more appropriate for second story improvements. She said that there are many opportunities to develop interior lots with one story improvements without creating a blight of second stories. Diane Larson said that they have lived in Belveron since 1987 and object to the second story being proposed. She said that there some second stories have been built in the neighborhood but only when they did not infringe on neighbors. She said that this second story design would infringe on the neighbors' privacy because they would be in full view of the second story windows. She felt that a second story in Belveron should only be considered as an exception. She stated that the original 1950's development was graded to allow water drainage, and a second story on Apollo Road would therefore loom even higher over a house on Juno Road. Karen Halsey said that the purpose of the Hillside Design Guidelines is to help create homes in a way that is harmonious with the existing fabric of the neighborhood and the Town of Tiburon. She said that the guidelines have worked well for their neighborhood because the majority of residents have upheld the tradition of one story homes. She felt that this was what makes it a special and desirable neighborhood that people want to move to with their families. Pamela White read a letter from Melissa Hopps which stated that she was very upset with the proposal to build the two -story house on Apollo Road. She said that many of the houses in the neighborhood have been expanded without two stories in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. She said that one -story homes do not affect other peoples' view or proprietary value. She said that the story poles show that the house would change the look of the area and affect many people. She pointed out that the lot is one of the biggest in Belveron and she felt that a one -story house could be built on this site. Jane Zabielskis said that she has lived in her house for over 30 years and remodeled their house 25 years ago. She felt that it was important for the Design Review Board to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Sheila Peterson said that her grandparents bought her home in 1954, and she has seen many changes in the neighborhood. She was concerned that many of the second stories have been around the periphery where they back up to open space. She was very concerned about the second story being proposed right in the middle of the neighborhood and said that her view of Ring Mountain would be impacted by this project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 15 7/18/13 Linda Hevern said that she has lived at her home since 1982 and her husband has lived there since 1949. She said that they raised her boys there and understand the difficulty of raising kids in a small space, but they made it work. She said that they were very concerned about privacy issues in building two -story homes and strongly urged the Board to limit homes to one story in the neighborhood. Pam Welner said that the themes are loss of privacy, loss of views, loss of sunlight, character of the neighborhood, and the impact on neighbors. She said that she lives one street over and can see the story poles. She said that this proposed project would directly impact the neighbors and the entire neighborhood. She said that the size and bulk of the project would overwhelm the other one -story homes in the neighborhood. She characterized the proposed building height of 27 feet high as and thought that 2,800 square feet of living space was not modest for this neighborhood. She said that this would be a great home but is on the wrong lot. She was concerned about setting a precedent in the neighborhood for building such tall homes and noted that it would affect everyone in the neighborhood. Paul Stanley said that he remodeled his home in 1996. He said that his lot is smaller than the subject property and he added 1,000 square feet and kept it to one story and was still able to have a back yard. He said that the story poles show that the house would impinge on his privacy at his hot tub area and living room. Richard Vasicek said that they live three doors down from the proposed house. He said that part of why they moved to this neighborhood was the families. He said that there have been a significant number of homes remodeled in the neighborhood. He said that they have a two -story home next door to them and pointed out that a project can be done tastefully and trees can be planted to maintain privacy. He felt that the applicant has achieved this and he supported the proj ect. Matt Richter said he lives across the street from the project, is an architect and he knows the challenges and opportunities for maintaining a yard area. He said that many of the people opposed to growth in the neighborhood have been there a long time, but there are many new neighbors who would like to tastefully develop their properties and he thought that it was wrong for Design Review Boards to quash development that was clearly within the guidelines. He said that everyone would maintain a lot of view in the neighborhood with the second story being placed in the center of the house. He hoped that the Board understood that the neighborhood is going to change and a lot of people are going to move in and out. He thought that second stories were important to be able to maintain a yard. Mike Soper said that he went through design review 21/2 years ago and they added 500 square feet. He supported two stories and said that there is a beautiful house two doors down from him with two stories. He said that kids need a back yard and do not notice views, and he supported the project. Karen Carerra, fonner president of the Belveron neighborhood association, said that she loves her neighborhood and does not like it when certain neighbors are treated differently. She said if the Board voted against this project the applicants would have been treated differently. She said TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 16 7/18/13 that her house in the middle of Apollo Road is a two -story house with an addition in the middle. She pointed out that only one of the adjacent neighbors opposes this project. She said that this would not be a monster home and there already is precedent for building a two -story home in the neighborhood. She said that the purpose of the Board is to be sure buildings and homes comply with all of the health and safety codes. She said that the proposed house did not need variances and complies with all requirements and she does not want to see an old and vocal minority trump new ideas. Jim O'Neil said that they did a remodel project about five years ago. He said that he was not against development and wants to see it happen, but he felt that privacy needs to be respected. He said that these yards are very close and back up to each other and kids would be looking from their second story bedroom windows into the neighbors' back yards. He said that taking away that space and ability to have privacy would not be right. He said that they should be able to have a house of the same size on one floor on their large lot, and he would love to see a one -story house built. Page Beykpour said that he has lived on Apollo Road for over 30 years and has witnessed a significant amount of change in his community. He said that there are many homes that have second stories in the neighborhood and he believed that it is inequitable to approve some second stories and not others. He said that the proposal should be approved if there are other two story houses on the street. He supported the project and thought that it would bring value to the neighborhood. Andy Wisner said that he is very interested in maintaining the character of the neighborhood but it is not the houses but rather the people in the neighborhood who make its character. He said that he had no problem with the second story, believed that there are actually problems with some bigger single story homes, and that larger one -story homes cause loss of green space. He believed that the privacy issue was a bit overdone. He pointed out that a one -story design would actually bring the house closer to the fence. He felt that diversity in the style of houses was and he would like to see that continue. Michael Ciranni said that he supported the expansion including the second story addition. He said that the neighborhood is characterized by the families in the neighborhood and not by the houses. He believed that the neighborhood is adjusting as new families move in who have their own needs and concerns. He said that a second story expansion was a tradeoff with a project that preserves their yard space. He understood the need to have yard space for children and the concerns about safety and supported the project. Mr. Bell said that he respected both sides and appreciated all of the candid feedback. He said that they initially did not go to the neighbors to have a conversation because they wanted to elicit advice first from the Planning Division, but once they were at a point where they felt comfortable they went to the neighbors to share the plans. He said that he was willing to work with the neighbors and come to compromises. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 17 7/18/13 Boardmember Tollini acknowledged that there are strong opinions but that he looks at projects site - specifically and then at a more macro -level in terms of neighborhood consistency. He said that there certainly was a privacy issue with this project and that privacy is often not a matter of whether someone is looking at you but whether you feel like some is looking at you. He said that 27 foot tall houses are seldom seen even in neighborhoods that are not predominantly one story. He said that zoning is really just one criterion and other issues must be considered. He pointed out that the project at 22 Mercury Avenue was quite painful and ultimately, the second story was approved only to be later appealed and denied by the Town Council. He said that it was difficult to see a second story this size approved in the neighborhood. He said that a lot of the two -story homes in the neighborhood are not ones that he would have supported if he was on the Board when they were approved and he felt that the ones that have been approved are less than ideal. He said that in his 5+ years on the Board no second story has been approved in this area. He did not think that he could support a second story at this location. Boardmember Kricensky thought that the whole environment of the neighborhood would be affected by second story additions. He felt that if all of the houses were two stories it would really change the neighborhood. He said that the Board has rejected two -story homes on the interior of Belveron and approved more of those homes on the perimeter. He said that the few two -story homes in the interior do not create a precedent. He said that views of Ring Mountain are part of the environment of the neighborhood. He said that the Board is not charged with approving projects just because they meet zoning requirements and he recalled that the Board denied a 6 foot fence along the front property line in Belveron as it would have been out of character with the neighborhood. He said that he was surprised that the real estate community does not inform buyers that this is an issue in this neighborhood and thought that a second story would be inappropriate in center of the neighborhood. Boardmember Emberson said that she liked the design of the house but second stories have not been approved in this area for years. She said that it is possible to design a one -story addition and still have room for kids to play in the yard, and noted that the Board has approved variances into the setbacks to encourage one -story homes. Vice Chair Cousins said that this was difficult because he comes from an area where everyone has a two -story house and he felt that an argument could be made to encourage more yard area. He said that he had no objections to two stories, but he was concerned about the height of the house and thought that the 10 foot ceilings could be shorter. He felt that the precedent set by 29 Juno Road would make it difficult to not approve this project. Boardmember Emberson said that the second story on 29 Juno Road was done a long time ago and pointed out the current Board has not approved a second story in this portion of the neighborhood. Boardmember Chong said that he cringes every time a one -story project comes through that eliminates yard space. He said that he spoke to the neighbor to the right that would be most impacted and that neighbor did not object to the house. He said that this was one of the better two -story homes he had seen. He understood the impacts to the neighbors and suggested that there are other options to reduce the height and impact, but noted that there are a lot of two -story TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 18 7/18/13 homes nearby. He pointed out that this is a much bigger lot, and a nicer designed house, than the one at 22 Mercury Avenue. He acknowledged the split feelings in the neighborhood and said if the Board does not approve this then they are essentially saying that no two -story homes are allowed in Belveron. Vice Chair Cousins said he would not object to having a two -story house in the area and did not think that it would be out of character for the area. Boardmember Emberson said that this same issue has come up for other projects and no amount of continued tweaking of the design would help it. Boardmember Tollini said that the same thing happened with 22 Mercury Avenue as the Board tried to find a way to approve the project and he did not want to invite the applicant to simply tweak the project. Boardmember Emberson said that she cannot support a second story in the interior of this neighborhood. Mr. Rizzo noted that that they could lower the roof by three feet. Boardmembers Tollini, Emberson and Kricensky indicated that they could not support a two -story home on this site. Chair Chong commented that one -story houses that requested a variance have historically been approved in this neighborhood. Boardmember Tollini noted that the large size of the lot would not require them to go over the lot coverage by a large amount. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) to continue 26 Apollo Road to the September 5, 2013 meeting. Vote: 5 -0. 6. 65 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 713043; Andrea Hong and James Parsons, Owners; Dan Mihalovich and Judy Stern, Appellants; Appeal of Planning Staff s decision to conditionally approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for construction of a fence for an existing single- family dwelling. A new 6 foot tall wooden fence would be constructed along the west side property line on property. Assessor's Parcel No. 038- 301-35. On June 3, 2013 the Planning Division conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for construction of a new 6 foot tall wooden fence along the west side property line on property developed with a single- family dwelling located at 65 Reed Ranch Road. The owners of the adjacent property located at 67 Reed Ranch Road (Dan Mihalovich and Judy Stern), hereinafter referred to as "appellants," have filed a timely appeal of staff s decision. On May 14, 2013, the applicants submitted the subject application for a new fence on the property. The project involves the construction of a 6 foot tall solid wood fence along the western side property line shared with the property at 67 Reed Ranch Road. An existing wood fence that is situated 3 to 5 feet inside the western property line toward the rear of the site would be removed and replaced with the new fence along the property line. During the ten -day courtesy public review period, the appellants submitted a letter objecting to the proposed fence. The appellants were concerned that the construction of the fence would disrupt vegetation and irrigation on their property and affect light into their bedrooms. One June 3, 2013, staff conditionally approved the subject application. In response to the appellants' concerns, the following conditions of approval were imposed on the application: TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 19 7/18/13 2. A survey of the property line where the fence is to be located shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The fence shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and the property line survey. 3. Construction of the fence shall not result in damage to vegetation, irrigation systems or any other improvements on the adjacent property at 67 Reed Ranch Road. On June 10, 2013, the appellants filed a timely appeal of Staff's decision to the Design Review Board. Judy Stern, appellant, said the fence is important to them for both privacy and design impacts. She distributed photos of the fence design and said that the fence would replace their current fence and would be harsh in appearance and she did not like the black metal posts. She said that they would like something more garden -like that would mimic the natural landscape and be made of wood similar to the current fence design. She said that the fence would be constructed one foot inside the property line and she wanted to be sure that they would have no problems planting next to and in front of the fence, including attaching trellises to the fence. She said the initial proposal was to start the fence near the redwood tree and they do not want to damage the roots of that tree, so the applicants agreed to move the fence behind the redwood tree. Ms. Stern said that the fence along the side of the house would be new as no fence currently exists in that location. She said that she would like to see a simple drawing of the design of that new fence. She was concerned about damage to her plants from the installation of the fence posts and asked if the fence could be built one foot inside their new property line just like the fence in the back yard. She said that she filed the appeal in order to reach an agreement on the fence. She said that they have met and made efforts toward an agreement but then had to get lawyers involved. She said that they still want to work out an arrangement with their neighbors. James Parsons, owner, said that this was a simple request for a fence. He said that every time they made a proposal to the neighbor they only received more requests. He said that the proposed fence already exists on the other side of the property. He wanted to keep this simple and was perfectly happy to double side the fence and pull the fence 12 feet off the street. He said that he wanted to regain access to his property since the current fence is 3 -5 feet within his property. He said that said he was looking for closure and the ability to move forward on a simple fence. Chair Chong asked for the location of the agreement to double side the fence. Mr. Parsons said that it would be from the front yard to Ms. Stern's gate. He said that she could put a trellis or block on her property with landscaping. He said that she was concerned about the redwood tree and roots and they agreed to eliminate the last two posts and end the fence 12 feet from where it was shown on the plans. He said that an engineer designed a foundation that would be completely on his property and the only time they would need to access Ms. Stern's property would be when the contractors put in the posts. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 20 7/18/13 Boardmember Kricensky asked if the fence would be treated. Mr. Parsons said that it would be cedar which is usually treated to maintain the wood. He said that he wants to build a fence that lasts a long time and that is why he wants to build it with metal posts. He said that he did not like plants growing on the fence and he therefore did not want a trellis placed against it. There were no public comments. Ms. Stern reiterated that she would like to see a simple drawing of the new fence along the side of the house so she could see what it looks like. Mr. Parsons said that it would look exactly like the existing fence on the other side. Ms. Stern said that she therefore did not need to see a drawing. Ms. Stern said that she wanted to be sure she will be able to plant along the fence past her property line. Planning Manager Watrous indicated that a property owner cannot typically plant something on someone else's property. Boardmember Tollini agreed that this request was outside the purview of the Design Review Board. The Board discussed the following conditions — double siding the fence from the front gate forward, the color of the vertical posts shall matching the color of the horizontal posts and eliminating the last two segments of the fence shown on the plans. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the appropriate action to add these conditions of approval was to direct staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini / Kricensky) to direct staff to return with a resolution partially granting the appeal for 65 Reed Ranch Road with the addition of the following conditions of approval: to double side the fence from the front gate forward; the color of the vertical posts to match the color of the horizontal posts; and eliminating the last two segments of the fence as shown on the plans. Vote: 5 -0. G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #10 OF THE JUNE 209 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Emberson left the meeting Vice Chair Cousins requested amending page 12, third paragraph, last sentence to read "....add putting additional fences on top of them was necessary." Boardmember Kricensky requested striking the language on page 9 stating that "windows were beautiful" and replacing it with "the project would be impactful ". ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini / Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the June 20, 2013 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4 -0 -1 ( Emberson recused). H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 21 7/18/13 NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA Marin Local Agency Formation Commission August 8, 2013 7:00 p.m., Thursday San Rafael Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER ROT.T. C'AT.T. G ) PUBLIC COMMENT This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not listed on this agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing or u7ill be placed on the Commission's agenda for consideration at a later meeting. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Action or Possible Action Items Below: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS) 1. Regular Meeting Minutes - June 13, 2013 2. Special Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2013 3. Financial Reports - Tune and July 2013 CLOSED SESSION 4. Public Employee Appointment, Marin Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer: The Commission will consider personnel matters concerning the hiring of the new Marin LAFCO Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code §54957. BUSINESS ITEMS) 5. Possible Contract with Peter Banning: The Commission will consider a short -term contract with Peter Banning for transitional Executive Officer services. Staff Report COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Pursuant to GC Section 84308, if you wish to participate in the above proceedings, you or your agent are prohibited from malting a campaign contribution of $250 or more to any Commissioner or Alternate. This prohibition begins on the date you begin to actively support or oppose an application before LAFCO and continues until 3 months after a final decision is rendered by LAFCO. If you or your agent have made a contribution of $250 or more to any Commissioner or Alternate during the 12 months preceding the decision, in the proceeding that Commissioner or Alternate must disqualify himself or herself from the decision. However, disqualification is not required if the Commissioner or Alternate returns that campaign contribution within 30 days of learning both about the contribution and the fact that you are a participant in the proceedings.