The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2013-12-19TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of December 9 -19, 2013 Tiburon 1. Notice of Special Vacancy — Planning Commission 2. News Release — Angel Island Ferry Concession Operations — Calif. State Parks Requesting Public Input 3. Notice — Zero Waste Marin — Christmas Tree Recycling 2013/2014 Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes — Planning Commission — November 13, 2013 5. Minutes — Design Review Board — November 21, 2013 6. Action Minutes — Design Review Board — December 5, 2013 7. Action Minutes — Planning Commission — December 11, 2013 8. Meeting Cancellation — Design Review Board — December 19, 2013 and January 2, 2014 9. Meeting Cancellation — Planning Commission — December 25, 2013 and January 8, 2014 Regional a) Notice of Council Reorganization — Fairfax b) Notice of Council Reorganization - Larkspur c) Notice of Council Reorganization — Novato d) Notice of Council Reorganization — San Anselmo e) Notice of Council Reorganization - Sausalito f) Letter - City of Sausalito — Thanks to Marin County Major Crimes Task Force g) Fundraiser — EAH * h) Western City Magazine — December 2013 i) Bay Area Monitor — Newsletter of League of Women Voters — December 2013 /January 2014 Agendas & Minutes j) Agenda — LAFCo of Marin County — December 12, 2013 * Council Only TOWN OF TIBURON SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE On Town of Tiburon Boards, Commissions & Committees January 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION - (Statutory Authority: Section 3.04 of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance) MUM` /0 Purpose: The Planning Commission reviews and acts on applications for Conditional Use Permits, Secondary Dwelling Unit Use Permits, Minor Subdivisions, Lot Line Adjustments and certain other required applications. The Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the Town Council regarding Zone Changes, Zoning Text Amendments, Precise Development Plans, Major Subdivisions, and amendments to Master Plans and the Tiburon General Plan. Decisions of the Commission are final, unless appealed to the Town Council. Qualifications: Applicants must be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the interest, dedication and time commitment to promote the general welfare of the community through proper interpretation and implementation of the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Term: 4 years (the vacancy below is for the remainder of a 4 -year term expiring in February 2015). The vacancy on the Planning Commission has occurred as follows: Appointee Date Appointed Date Resi. -ned Term Expires 1) Erin Tollini February 2010; 2011 December 2013* February 2015 *appointed to Town Council Deadline for Applications: Febf uaiy 1, 2014 (Position open until filled.). Applications can be found on the Town's website, www.townoftiburon.or (link to "Helpful Docs /Forms "). Submit your application and letter of interest to Town Clerk, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. -- Notice to be published in Tie Ark on Janumy 1, 2014 -- Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Bel /Tib Library CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION S News Release SINGE 1864 0. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Vicky Waters, Deputy Director of Public Affairs (916) 653 -5115 December 3, 2013 Brian Cahill, Chief, Revenue and Customer Service (916) 653 -3460 California State Parks Seeks Public Input Regarding Angel Island Ferry Concession Operation County and San Francisco ANGEL ISLAND, Calif.— California State Parks will accept public comment regarding-t. ftrti ferryboat concession operations from Marin County and San Francisco to Angel Is�lntl: stat Park on Thursday. January 16. 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at the Mill Vallev Communitv Center, 180 Camino Alto, Mill Valley, CA 94941. Angel Island State Park is located within the San Francisco Bay Area. The current ferryboat services from Marin County and San Francisco to Angel Island State Park are provided by private ferryboat operators out of the cities of Tiburon and San Francisco through expired concession contracts on holdover status. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit public input and ideas for the development of a Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP will attract bids from operators that can continue the ferryboat services under new contracts. The RFP will satisfy California statutory requirements for concession contracts to be subject to a competitive bid process. California State Parks received initial recommendations on the future ferry operations through an economic feasibility study completed by an outside consultant in September 2012. Some of these recommendations may also be presented for comment during this public input meeting. The study is available to interested parties at www.parks.ca.gov /concessions. For further information regarding Angel Island State Park or the concession operations, please contact Steve Schory, Acting Angel Island Sector Superintendent at (415) 435 -8339, email Steve. Schory(a)-parks. ca.gov, or Teresa Montijo, Concession Program Manager at (916) 653- 7733, email Teresa. Monti io(a-)- parks. ca. gov. California State Parks • Marin District • 845 Casa Grande Road, Petaluma, CA (707) 769 -5675 • Fax (707) 769 -5675 California State Parks on the Internet: http: / /www.parks.ca.gov CHRISTMAS TREE RECYCLING 20I3 - E014 CURSSIDE COLLECTION Remove all ornaments, lights, tinsel and tree stands Marin Sanitary Larkspur, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Las Gallinas Valley, Service Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Fairfax and Ross Customers: Valley (Sleepy Hollow and Oak Manor); trees will be collected at the curb on your regular yard waste pickup day through the month of January. If trees are greater than 6 feet in length, please cut them in half. Remove all metal stands, plastic tree bags, and ornaments. Flocked trees will not be accepted. Mill Valley Almonte, Alto, Belvedere, Corte Madera, Mill Refuse Valley, Homestead, Strawberry, & Tiburon put Customers: trees out on the curb on any regular green -waste collection day, starting the week after Christmas. Trees taller than 5 feet in length must be cut in half. Flocked trees are OK. All apartment building tenants should contact their manager. They will set up one day for all Christmas tree collection. Novato During the week of January 7th customers may Disposal place whole trees at the curb the night before their Customers: regular collection day. Additionally, trees may be cut to fit inside your yard waste container for collection on your regular service day. Remove all lights, tinsel ornaments and stands. Flocked trees will not be collected. Redwood Bolinas, Forrest Knolls, Inverness, Marshall, Muir Empire Beach, Nicasio, Olema, Point Reyes, Station, Disposal: San Geronimo, Stinson Beach, West Marin and Woodacre cut trees to fit inside your yard waste container. Remove all lights, tinsel ornaments and stands. Flocked trees will not be collected. Sausalito /: Bay Cities Refuse customers in Sausalito can Marin City place trees at the curb or in green cart on your weekly green -waste pick up day. Customers in Marin City can put trees at the curb on your regular green -waste pick up day January 10th and January 24th. A debris box will be set out at MLK property until mid - January for tree drop -off. No metal stands or flocked trees and remove all ornaments. Tamalpais CSD: Curbside pickup January 6th -10th, $15 charge for pickup after the 10th, residents can also bring their trees down to the Community Center parking lot and drop off next to the mulch piles. Please make sure to remove all tree stands (wood, metal, or plastic), tinsel, ornaments, etc. Trees can also be cut into pieces no longer than 2 feet long and placed in your green cart. The lid must be closed completely. 3. DROP-OFF LOCATIONS Remove all ornaments. lights, tinsel and tree stands Kentfield: January 3rd through 13th, Trees greater than 6' in length must be cut in half College of Marin, Parking Lot #12 (south of gym). Larkspur: January 3rd through 13th, Trees greater than 6' in length must be cut in half. • Piper Park, 250 Doherty Dr. • Fire Station 16, 15 Barry Rd., Greenbrae / Niven Park, Drakes Landing Rd. Marinwood: January 3rd through 13th, Trees greater than 6' in length must be cut in half. Flocked Trees and trees with wooden stands will not be accepted. • Marinwood Fire Station, 777 Miller Creek Rd. Novato: San Marin High School parking lot (15 San Marin Dr.) December 28 -29, January 1, 4, 5 and 11 from 9 am - 4 pm only. The High School asks for a $5 donation ($15 for flocked trees) which helps fund Safe Grad Night. A pick -up service can be scheduled through smtreerecycle@gmail.com or 415.899.9223. $10 for standard trees, $25 for flocked. All proceeds from this event support San Marin's Safe and Sober Grad Parry for graduating seniors. www.SMsafegrad.org Point Reyes: December 26th- January 15th, 8:00 am -5:00 pm. Flocked Trees and trees with stands will not be accepted. • Point Reyes Fire House; 4th & B Streets Ross: January 3rd through 13th, Trees greater than 6' in length must be cut in half. • Marin Art & Garden Center; 30 Sir Francis Drake Blvd (across from fire station). San Rafael: January 3rd through 13th. Trees greater than 6' in length must be cut in half • Fire Station 2: 210 3rd St. (3rd & Union) • Pickleweed Community Center; 50 Canal St. • Fire Station 7: 3530 Civic Center Dr. (Civic Center) • Fire Station 5: 955 Point San Pedro Road (Glenwood /Peacock Gap Area) • Manuel T. Freitas Parkway & Del Ganado (Scotty's Market Parking Lot) • Marin Resource Recovery Center, 565 Jacoby Street, during the month of January, trees accepted free of charge. (There will be a charge for flocked trees. Stinson/ M -Sa 9am -5pm. No flocked trees, tinsel, ornaments Bolinas: or stands will be accepted. • Bolinas- Stinson Recovery Park; 25 Olema Bolinas Rd. Tam Valley: Tamalpais Valley Community Center parking lot next to the mulch piles no later than January 30th. Tomales: December 26th - January 15th, 8:00am- 5:00pm. No Flocked trees or wooden stands. • Tomales Fire House; 599 Dillon Beach Rd. Woodacre: December 26th- January 15th, 8:00am- 5:00pm. Flocked Trees and trees with wooden stands in place will not be accepted. • Woodacre Fire House; 33 Castle Rock Rd. Go to ZeroWasteMarin.Org for more disposal options PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1038 November 13, 2013 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Weller called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: Chair Weller, Vice Chair Welner, Commissioners Corcoran, Kulik and Tollini Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Planning Manager Watrous stated that the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 27, 2013 is the night before Thanksgiving and that is traditionally cancelled. He stated that currently nothing was scheduled for the December 11 th meeting, which would mean no Planning Commission meetings would be scheduled for the rest of the year. He noted that this will also be Commissioner Tollini's last meeting, and Planning Manager Watrous and Chair Weller thanked her for her service and wished her well. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: PERIODIC REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY SCHOOL; FILE # 10404: Congregation Kol Shofar, Owner and Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038 - 351 -34 Planning Manager Watrous reported that this was the fifth review of the conditional use permit. He highlighted a few conditions from the staff report. He said that there were past complaints about maintenance of landscaping on the property and a late mail item was received from a nearby resident also noting this ongoing concern. He stated that the monitoring of High Holidays was conducted on September 4, 2013, and there is a monitoring report detailed that the shuttle service seemed to work smoothly, only one parking lot was being used, many of the cars parked on the street during the service were residents coming home late and the ongoing improvement in management of parking was in compliance with the required parking and traffic management. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 1 Planning Manager Watrous stated Kol Shofar was operating in substantial compliance with the CUP and no complaints were received in regards to the 201' ) High Holy Days. He stated that at the last review there was some discussion about possibly modifying some conditions of approval, including the ongoing monitoring that is currently required to be done for at least two years by independent observers. Staff felt that they were able to conduct the necessary monitoring this past year without passing the expense of an independent monitor to Kol Shofar. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the CUP requires one more review scheduled in 6 months and then annually thereafter. He recommended skipping the next 6 month review and going straight to annual reviews from this point on. He noted that the CUP included a recominendation from the Town Council that the effectiveness of the use permit should be tested over a substantial period of time before the Commission recommends any changes, and staff felt that the above mentioned changes were appropriate. Joshua Steinhauer, representing Kol Shofar, said that they did not propose any amendments to the CUP tonight but they had some requests that will be brought up at another time. He said that they support the idea of annual monitoring, but he felt that the language to monitor their parking was not necessary because staff can monitor it any time. Commissioner Tollini noted the Treemasters report from November 2012 and asked if the branches recommended for removal had been removed. Mr. Steinhauer confirmed that the branches were removed. Commissioner Tollini asked about the plantings along Reedland Woods Way. Mr. Steinhauer said that they continue to monitor the vegetation but do not plan to plant or remove any trees in that location. Commissioner Kulik said that the trees on Reedland Woods Way have been an ongoing concern of the neighbor who submitted the late mail. He asked if Kol Shofar would be willing to replace those plants. Mr. Steinhauer stated they have been monitoring and replacing plants when necessary. Commissioner Kulik said that he heard that replacing that vegetation was not in the budget, but this is a required condition of approval. Mr. Steinhauer said that he thought that the neighbors were requesting replacement of trees that do not need it, but he said that he will certainly look at it. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the trees are a requirement, and Planning Manager Watrous said the only required landscaping to be planted was in the landscaping plan. He stated that the complaint had more to do with ongoing maintenance and replacements and there was no condition of approval to replace particular plants. He said that the landscape plan was approved by the Design Review Board and staff inspected it in 2010 and the plantings complied with the approved landscaping plan at that time. There were no public comments. Chair Weller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Corcoran said that there has been little to discuss on this project. He thought that Kol Shofar has done a good job complying with the conditional use permit and that this was the first time there has been a letter from a neighbor in a few years. He supported the suggestion to go to annual reviews starting with one year from now and also supported Kol Shofar's TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 2 suggestion that staff be given discretion to detennine whether it is necessary to do traffic and parking monitoring. Commissioner Tollini thought that what Ms. Seidel was referring to in her letter is the requirement that dead or dying plants should be replaced. She said that she visited the site today and felt that the vegetation along Reedland Woods Way looked sufficient. She noted that the CUP requires three parking monitors and only one was present and she wondered if perhaps the Commission should discuss changing the requirement so Kol Shofar would not be in noncompliance by doing what seems to be common sense. She agreed with Commissioner Corcoran that a one year CUP review seemed most prudent along with giving the Town discretion to monitor traffic and parking once per year. She believed that Kol Shofar was in substantial compliance with the CUP. Vice Chair Welner said that he was happy that Kol Shofar is at a point where the Commission can amend the CUP for annual reviews. He felt that this was appropriate given the track record established over the last few years. He said that the logic of adding a requirement for staff to monitor traffic and parking was not clear to him because adding that requirement would extend it beyond two years and he supported leaving it out unless staff had a concern. Plamling Manager Watrous confirmed that staff has no concern and that the intent of the recommended condition of approval was not to create any official ongoing monitoring but instead to reflect that staff can conducting the monitoring instead of hiring an independent monitor. Vice Chair Welner stated that he also felt that Kol Shofar was in substantial compliance with the CUP. Cormmissioner Kulik said that he deferred to his fellow Commissioners since they had more insight on the history of this project. He said that he met with Ms. Seidel and that without seeing the actual landscape plan the trees appear to be a very small part of the entire CUP. If the trees were part of the landscaping plan, then he respectfully requested that the landscaping be addressed because it would a very small cost to achieve full compliance. Chair Weller agreed that annual reviews would be appropriate. He agreed with Vice Chair Welner that monitoring of parking should not be required as a condition of approval and he suggested addressing that only if a problem developed. He agreed that the CUP ought to be stripped of items that are not essential, but he did not want to cherry pick items but rather allow Kol Shofar to bring those to staff's attention and address them in an organized way. He said that he would like a more definite answer from staff as to the landscape maintenance required by the CUP. Planning Manager Watrous said that requiring individual plants shown on an approved landscaping plan to be maintained in that exact condition over time is not a standard to which anyone in Tiburon is held. He said that the Town allows some discretion in planting after a final inspection is done. He said that the issue of landscaping maintenance is more of a subjective decision that the Commission must make to determine whether the landscaping appearance is appropriately in compliance with the intent of the landscape plan rather than requiring particular plants to be in place. Vice Chair Welner stated that the language of the requirement does not say that every dead and dying plant shall be replaced, but says that there shall be upkeep and dead and dying plants shall be replaced. He thought that the interpretation of the resident who sent the letter was a rather TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 3 extreme interpretation of the language and he did not think that that was the intent of the requirement. Commissioner Kulik said that the Toyon plants were intended to grow to 15 feet in height and he thought that that was the spirit of the letter and the intention was to provide a visual barrier in that location. ACTION: It was M/S (Welner /Corcoran) that 215 Blackfield Drive is in substantial compliance with its conditional use permit and direct staff to draft a resolution converting the review process to an annual review. Motion carried: 5 -0. 2. 1 ROUND HILL TERRACE: REQUEST TO AMEND THE ROUND HILL OAKS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #36) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR LOT 1; FILE #31303; Ian Schwartz, Owner; Ivan Lukrich, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 058- 301 -39 Planning Manager Watrous reported this is a request to amend the Round Hill Oaks Precise Development Plan for the property located at 1 Round Hill Terrace. The amendment would increase the maximum allowable floor area for this home from 2,300 square feet to 2,734 square feet. The new floor area would allow for the construction of a master bedroom suite addition and a new bedroom and bathroom for the existing single- family dwelling on the site. The previous approval of the Round Hill Oaks Precise Development Plan to create four single - family residential lots on a 3.7 acre parcel included floor area limitations for each of the four lots. Lot 1 occupies the northernmost 1.23 acres of this subdivision. During the review of the Precise Development Plan by the Planning Commission, the building envelope for Lot 1 was reduced in size and moved further away from a nearby drainage course. The maximum floor area for a house on this lot was reduced by 500 square feet from the originally requested 2,800 square feet to a maximum of 2,300 square feet. The applicant at that time characterized the house on this lot as a "carriage house" that would be tucked into the hillside of this lot. Resolution No. 3297 states that "the proposed building envelope for Lot 1 would nestle the future house into the side of a hill and into the adjacent grove of trees." A single - family dwelling was constructed on this lot in 2001 in conformance with these requirements. Planning Manager Watrous stated that some of the calculated floor area for this project has to do with cantilevered space below the dining room so there is not actual enclosed living space. The addition would all be within the building envelope. Staff feels the addition would not substantially expand the mass of the existing house, and the overall appearance of the house would be almost indistinguishable with the existing house on the site. Commissioner Tollini asked if story poles were not required because it was within the same building envelope, and Planning Manager Watrous confirmed that was the case. Ivan Lukrich, architect, said that this is a challenging parcel with a small footprint and living areas stepped back into the hillside with many retaining walls. He said that they are asking for an expansion of the master bedroom to be able to add another bedroom to the space to accommodate a growing family. He described the design details and said that 70 square feet of floor area would be built over an existing hardscape area on the second floor comprised of patio TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 4 area that would not be enclosed. He said that the project would lift the tower up, reduce the size of windows to match the existing floor, and snatch the existing construction and would be under the height of the existing building. He said that the building is well screened from the existing neighbors and he showed photographs of the parcel and the grove of trees that screen it from the adjacent homes. Commissioner Kulik asked about an oak tree that was removed. Mr. Lukrich stated that he did not know the location of that tree but said that they will provide additional screening if necessary. Chair Weller opened the public hearing. Kimberly Schmidt stated that she has lived on Round Hill Terrace for 8 years and her family thought that the addition was tasteful and fully supported the project. Chair Weller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kulik said he visited the site and he felt that noted the history of the project indicated that this was looked at many times. He said that one of the concerns 15 years ago was the massiveness of the house from the road, but there have been no objections from neighbors currently. He said that the concern of the owner of 2 Round Hill Terrace was notable and he thought that the gesture to replant any vegetation would satisfy their concerns. Ian Schwartz, owner, said that all of the homes were developed as spec houses and he was the first occupant of 1 Round Hill Terrace and the last to take residence in the four homes. He said that he was happy to address all concerns. He distributed photos of the screening to the Commission for review. Vice Chair Weiner said that this looked like a carefully thought out addition that would match the neighborhood and the house. He shared Commissioner Kulik's concern about overturning something that was so carefully worked out years ago, but he saw no objections and supported the request. Commissioner Tollini expressed similar concerns about amending a precise plan that was so contentious in the past. She did not think that this should be something to be changed so easily simply because no one objected. However, she felt that the addition was thoughtful and she understood the need for the bedrooms. She said that she would like to see story poles because she could not see how the addition would impact neighboring lots. Commissioner Corcoran said that he believed that the passage of time cannot affect their decision. He said that the Commission should not make decisions based on whether neighbors show up to meetings, but rather based on consistency with prior history, and consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance. He said that he cannot support changing something that was so well thought -out and thoroughly discussed. He said that the 2,300 square foot floor area limit for this lot was a compromise and this application would overturn that compromise. He said that he was not comfortable approving this change just because the limit was set 15 years ago. He felt TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 5 that the Commission should not approve this application and the applicant can appeal to the Town Council. Chair Weller agreed with Commissioner Corcoran. He acknowledged that there has been a passage of time, but said that very definite decision was made not very long ago. He said that he was not inclined to overturn the decision of his predecessors on the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Welner thought that a hard fought battle 15 years ago was a long time ago and circumstances have changed. He said that whether neighbors show up to the meeting is an indicator of how people in the neighborhood feel about a project. He stated that the role of the Planning Commission is to make recommendations to the Town Council and to look at projects on a case by case basis. He felt that this project was consistent with the neighborhood and well done, and he would recommend approval to the Council. Commissioner Corcoran observed that he has noticed an increase in these types of applications and he was concerned about the message being sent to the community that past decisions can be changed. Vice Chair Welner said that it is appropriate for the Commission and the Council to revisit past decisions periodically. Commissioner Kulik said that the two issues in the past were the visual mass/bulk and environmental concerns about runoff. He believed that if the story poles were installed it would be easier to visualize the mass of the addition. Vice Chair Welner asked if the applicant was told that story poles are not required. Planning Manager Watrous said yes, that the applicant was told that story poles were not required. He noted that an addition of this size would normally go through a staff -level design review where story poles are not required. Vice Chair Welner suggested asking the applicant if he would be willing to put up story poles so their project can be considered at a future meeting. Planning Manager Watrous noted that there would only be four Commissioners at a future meeting since Commissioner Tollini will have left. Mr. Lukrich agreed to put up story poles and requested that the application be continued to a meeting as soon as possible. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller /Tollini) to continue the application for 1 Round Hill Terrace to the December 11, 2013 meeting. Motion carried: 5 -0. MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 23, 2013 Commissioner Tollini requested changing the paragraph on page 2 from "Commissioner Tollini asked if there is an ongoing review process without the CUP coming up for renewal" to "Commissioner Tollini asked if RF reports are submitted without the CUP coming up for renewal." ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the October 2' ), 2013 meeting as amended. Motion carried: 5 -0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 6 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. LOU WELLER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1038 PAGE 7 - a MINUTES #19 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2013 The meeting was opened at 7:05 p.m. by Vice -Chair Cousins. A. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: Chair Chong Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous reported that the appeal for 26 Apollo Road was denied at the previous night's Town Council meeting. He also stated that the next scheduled DRB meeting will be on December 5, 2013 and that the December 19, 2013 and January 2, 2014 meetings will likely be canceled due to the holidays. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 2240 CENTRO EAST STREET: File No. 713070; Margo and Douglas Zucker, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling. The house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, three bedrooms, three bathrooms, powder room, laundry room, wine cellar and a two -car garage. The house would have 3,289 square feet of floor area and cover 3,479 square feet (26.9 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 142 -02. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 2240 Centro East Street. This application was first reviewed at the October 17, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners objected to the project design. The concerns centered on how the height of the proposed house would potentially block views from homes in the vicinity and would be inconsistent with the height of other homes along this side of the street. The Design Review Board generally concurred with these concerns and felt that the proposed house was too tall and had too much glazing on the front of the house. The Board continued the application to the November 21, 2013 meeting to allow the applicants the opportunity to address these concerns. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The revised project design reduces the height of the house by 5 feet, 6 inches in the center portion of the house, by 3 feet, 6 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 inches in the rear portion of the house and by 2 feet at the garage. The reduced height also reduces the amount of window area at the front of the house by approximately 25 %. A new 5 foot tall wooden fence is now proposed along the eastern (left) side property line, with taller plantings proposed along that property line. A proposed irrigation diverter pump has been eliminated from the plans. The lot coverage of the proposed house was reduced by 344 square feet to a total of 3,479 square feet (26.9 %) of the site, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage in the R -2 zone. The floor plans of the proposed house was not changed and the floor area would be 3,289 square feet, with 594 square feet of garage space, which would be 4 square feet less than the 3,293 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Doug Zucker, owner, displayed a rendering of the prior design of the house and reviewed the previous comments, including lowering the house, lowering the massing and scale within the neighborhood, and addressing the amount of glazing to reduce light pollution toward the street. He said that they lowered the house 5 feet 6 inches, and 2 feet at the garage and lowered the entire back of the house by 3 feet 6 inches. He said that they accomplished this by pushing the house down 2 feet 6 inches into the ground, lowering and eliminating parapets, and tipping the roof down. He displayed drawings of the revised design and pointed out the stepped design of the roof so it would now step down with the hill, noting that the design now included a 5 '/2 foot drop to the garage and a steep driveway at a 16% grade. He pointed out that the house next door goes up almost as high as his house and has a deleterious effect on the view. He displayed photographs of the view from the street and noted the views of water and Angel Island, adding that they lost quite a bit of that view by pushing the house down. Mr. Zucker displayed drawings of the proposed house from above and from various homes in the neighborhood. He stated that they would replace the existing shrubs with shrubs that will grow to 10 feet high. He said that they eliminated the pump to gather water from the creek in this design. He displayed several photographs of the views from neighboring homes showing that the story poles indicate that the new house would be below or minimally impact water views. Mr. Zucker stated the previous design included about 400 square feet of glazing on the north side and they reduced that by about 100 square feet and taken most of the glass out in higher areas where it would have more of an impact. He said that they will install shades on the windows and they have an extensive landscape plan to provide privacy and completely block any light pollution. He stated that other houses on the street block water views but block some or all views of Angel Island. He said that the neighborhood is full of large houses with walls to the street and long facades. He felt that the proposed house would be in keeping with the neighborhood and that they did a good job addressing the Board's and the neighbor's concerns. He stated that they compromised their own views to preserve the views of the neighbors. Boardmember Kricensky asked about the glass wall going out to the front patio and asked if there would be a fireplace in that location. Mr. Zucker confirmed that there would be a gas fireplace in that area in the location of the glass panel. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 Milton Diaz -Perez said that his home directly overlooks the property. He acknowledged that the house was lowered several feet, but also said that this was in response to an original plan whose story poles caused a large impact on the neighborhood. He said that this lot is difficult but the house would impact his view of the hills and Lyford tower and he felt that these were legitimate concerns. He suggested reducing the height of the top floor, which currently has 11 and 12 foot ceilings in some areas, by about 2 additional feet. Steve Wear said that he looked at the story poles upon arriving home from a trip and he saw that they were lowered a bit. He understood that the owner wanted to maximize their view and property, but he felt that they must be considerate of the views of the neighbors who have lived in the neighborhood for a long time. Mr. Wear said that in the past when a house was built the roofline could not go above the roofline of the neighboring house. He was unsure whether such a rule still applies, but he was concerned about view blockage and the size of the house itself. He said that he understood that progress is inevitable but he asked the Board to consider the effects of the house on views. David Kirchhoff stated that lowering the height of the house helped a lot and he displayed three photographs showing other rooflines in the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed roofline would be about 3 -4 feet higher than the average roofline. He stated that the mass and scale of the home was too large for the neighborhood and he suggested lowering the house another few feet into the ground so it would not affect views of other houses. He said that the proposed trees to be planted in front of the house to address the glazing issue would grow and block the views of the uphill neighbors. He expressed concern that if this house is allowed, then its mass and scale would cause a rolling effect up the hill such that those houses would be built higher in order to preserve views. Mr. Zucker respectfully disagreed with many of the comments. He noted that the land sat empty for a long time and putting up story poles was going to inevitably cause a stir. He stated that this is a high density residential neighborhood and is not designated open space. He stated the maximum ceiling height would actually be 11 feet 6 inches and 10 feet elsewhere in the house. He said that they could push down the building but the height of the building would be determined by the ceiling heights of the upper floor and not those of the lower floor. He said that if the house was dropped another 2 feet that would eliminate their view. He said that the Board should take into account the height in relation to the street and he showed photographs of other houses in the neighborhood that are higher than the proposed house. He stated that the site topography is radically different than the neighboring lots that have bridges to the homes. He agreed to trim the trees and suggested planting a tree that does not grow fast such as a live oak. He showed several photos of tall or long houses in the neighborhood with trees and stated that the trees would be a real benefit. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said that the applicant tried to take the design of other houses in the neighborhood into account. He believed that the height had been brought down quite a bit which he thought was reasonable. He said that he did not have a problem with the height and felt that to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 go any lower would sacrifice their view. He stated that the "borrowed view" people have had across this lot for so long is hard to give up, but has to be done. He noted that the other houses in the neighborhood block the view from the street. He said that looking at this building and the story poles without the landscaping snakes it seem larger. He said that his primary concern was the glass on the entrance side of the building. He said that the glass in the rear was needed for views but he was not sure that the glazing on that side needed to be that large. He said that the beacons of light from such windows would be very distracting to neighbors' panoramic nighttime views of the water. Boardmember Emberson agreed with Boardinember Kricensky's comments and stated that anyone who bought this lot would want to maximize the view. She said that she could not find that the owner cannot build what is allowed by zoning and the house would be within the floor area ratio and did not require variances. She voiced concerns with the glazing on the front and the back. She said that the windows facing onto the front patio would be lit up and distracting to uphill neighbors and she suggested that the size could be reduced. She also thought that the huge volumes of glazing on the back could be substantially reduced. She said that the same amount of sunlight could be obtained with less glazing. She noted the Cajeput tree on the landscape plan is very fast growing and can grow to 40 feet and it is common for neighbors to have trouble agreeing to tree trimming, so she was therefore uncomfortable with planting tall trees to block the glazing. Boardmember Tollini stated that this was his first review of this project but he was familiar with the story poles and goes by this site relatively often. He said the obvious challenge for this site is the fact that this is a "borrowed view" and any development of it operates against an illusion that the lot would stay empty. He acknowledged the feelings of the neighbors but he thought that the mass, bulk and view impacts from the streetscape as well as the uphill side were a very fair compromise as presented. He said that some of the renderings were a bit misleading regarding the glazing, as there would be two big sliders looking onto the patio and then solid panels. He said that from any elevation above the parapet would be seen and not the window and when viewed from real locations this would not be very impactful. His concern about the bulk and mass was only from 170 Solano Street because that is the part of the house that does not step down at all and is at the minimum setback, with not much vegetation between the homes. He said that he had no issues with the glazing on the back as he did not think that much of the glazing would be seen from below. Vice -Chair Cousins said that the applicant did a good job addressing the Board's comments about the height. He felt that this was a reasonable compromise and he did not think that they could ask to further reduce the height. He believed that the parapets would help to reduce the visibility of the height on the downhill side. He said that the glazing on the downhill side would not be as apparent as it appeared on the elevation. He was concerned about the glazing in the front and believed that the neighbors would see the full height of the windows and there would be a large amount of light pollution. He said that this would create a privacy issue because the uphill neighbors would look straight into the living area. He suggested installing tinted glass in the clerestory windows to reduce light pollution. He also suggested reducing the size of the windows a bit more on the front of the building, as the foyer was all glass. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 4 11/21/13 Mr. Zucker stated that they had no problem installing tinted glass. He said that their plan at the entry was to have large louvers along the entire glass that they would close at night for privacy, similar to plantation shutters. He said that they wanted clerestory windows on that side to balance the light. Boardmember Emberson agreed that the clerestory windows should be tinted on the top and suggested cutting down the glazing by 25% on each side of the front door. Boardmember Kricensky said that he struggled a bit because he knew how dark it is in the area and the amount of light coming from the front of this house would be distracting to neighbors' views. He agreed that the clerestory windows should be tinted and the entry glass reduced. Vice -Chair Cousins stated that he would like to see the large panels of glass on the other side of the door reduced in size. Boardmember Tollini thought that the glass in the lower area would be the most sensitive because that is what would be seen when looking down from uphill. He suggested changing the windows to solid panels on the lower 80% of those areas, and to allow the windows in the upper areas. Boardmember Emberson agreed with that idea. Vice -Chair Cousins suggested reducing the glazing on either side of the front door by 50% by raising the sill height of the window. Boardmember Kricensky recognized the importance of trees and suggested planting trees that do not grow very tall. Boardmember Emberson said that the Cajeput should be replaced with another 24 -inch olive tree. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 2240 Centro East Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional conditions of approval to tint all clerestory windows on the front elevation, to reduce the windows on either side of the entry and the east side of the foyer by 50 %, and to replace the Cajeput tree with a 24 -inch box olive tree. Vote: 4 -0. 2. 317 KAREN WAY: File No. 21326; Golnaz and Kayvan Kafayi, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a vehicle entry gate and modifying an existing fence for an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced vehicle entry gate setback. The proposed vehicle entry gate would be situated within 4 feet of the roadway of Karen Way, which would be less than the 15 foot minimum required setback from a roadway for a vehicle entry gate. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 122 -11. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a vehicle entry gate and modifying an existing fence for an existing single - family dwelling on property located at 317 Karen Way. The property is currently developed with a one -story single - family dwelling. The project would involve the modification of an existing fence along the front property and the installation of a vehicle entry gate. There would be no changes to the floor area or calculated lot coverage of the property. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 The proposed vehicle entry gate would be situated within 4 feet of the roadway of Karen Way. As the minimum required setback from a roadway for a vehicle entry gate is 15 feet, a variance is requested for reduced vehicle entry gate setback. This application was first discussed at the November 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The agenda for that meeting inadvertently did not include the requested variance. As a result, the Design Review Board took testimony on the application, discussed the general merits of the project without discussing the variance request and continued the application to the November 21, 2013 meeting. Kayvan Kafayi, owner, said that they had multiple meetings with their neighbors since the last meeting and considered their comments. He said that some neighbors are in support of the plan and some would like modifications. He said that they removed the gate because it was very old and rundown and they felt it was a hazardous enviromnent. He said that the main purpose of the proposed gate was to keep their young children in while they play in the front yard and to keep there safe. He said that the gate would only be closed when the children play in the front yard. He said that they discussed making the gate shorter to address neighbors' concerns. He said that the wooden fence is very different element from the stucco exterior of their house, and they felt that a stucco wall would be more similar and therefore better looking. He said that the stucco wall would be covered with landscaping and they were open to discuss any modifications to it. He showed a photograph of a garage door from a neighboring house and he felt that it is very similar to the gate that they propose. The public hearing was opened. Holly Kaiser said that she lives right next door to the applicant. She recognized that the neighborhood started with similar houses in the 1950s and a lot of variety has developed over the years. She felt that the neighborhood is very charming and warm even with those changes. She said that she had no problem with the stucco wall and understood that the applicants want it to match their house. She said that she also understood the safety concerns of raising children. She stated that people come into the neighborhood with a variety of different experiences and she thought that the Town should welcome what the applicants were trying to do. John Leszczynski said that he has done two remodels to his house and when he did his renovations he had the setback and height limitations had very much in mind. He said that he fully supported staff's recommendations regarding this design. He felt that the proposed gate was ugly but he was amenable to a suggested change in the design without a masonry wall and barred, metal gate. He suggested having a landscape architect make suggestions for a solution other than the wall and metal gate. Cleveland Justis said that he supported staff's recommendations. He said that he understood the safety concerns, but he said that there are many houses in the neighborhood that have not needed a stucco wall and gate to address safety concerns. He believed that the concerns could be accommodated creatively without building a stucco wall and gate. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 Carol Perry said that throughout the construction the applicants have been very accommodating and open to the concerns of the neighbors. She said that she has lived in the neighborhood for 12 years and they had a fence to keep their young children safe. She said that since the design of the house includes stucco she believed that the wall should be consistent with the house. She believed that a wooden fence was not as nice looking as a stucco wall. She believed that this was a personal choice and if it was within the codes of the Town then it should be allowed. She supported the project as submitted and said that it is the people that snake a neighborhood welcoming and not the addition of a wall. Vasco Morais said that he did not think that the project was out of scope with the neighborhood. He said that all of the houses will need remodeling at some point and the neighborhood is evolving. He said that many houses have used some method of screening their bedrooms from the street and noted that people use fences and bushes. He personally thought that a stucco wall would be cleaner looking than bushes. He thought that the applicant and the neighbors were trying to work things out, but right now the neighborhood opinions are split about 50 -50 for and against the wall and gate. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini stated that his feelings had not changed since the last meeting. He did not think that a stucco wall was appropriate for the neighborhood and he could not support the driveway gate at all. He said that what was done previously on the property was such a disservice to the neighborhood that they should pretend it never happened. He did not think that there was anything unique about the property that would necessitate approving the gate. He suggested other improvements for the property such as a fence parallel to the driveway without the wall. Boardmember Emberson said that she cannot support the application because she cannot make the findings for the variance and not because of any subjective preferences. She said that there are many other ways to keep kids in the yard and obtain privacy than a stucco wall and driveway gate. Boardmember Kricensky agreed and said that he cannot make the findings for the variance for the driveway gate either. He said that the stucco wall would create a mass in front of the house and that a stucco wall has a different feeling than a fence. He believed that if everyone built walls in front of their houses it would significantly change the neighborhood. He said that there are other ways to accomplish their goals and suggested an open fence. He said that as the kids get older they will want to play in neighboring yards and streets. Vice -Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers and said that there was no way to support the variance. He agreed that a stucco wall would be completely out of character with the neighborhood and he felt that an open fence would be a lot better. He noted that there are houses all over Tiburon with open front yards. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Emberson) to adopt the resolution denying the application for 317 Karen Way. Vote: 4 -0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 3 PALMER COURT: File No. 713109; Tracey Turner, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The project would demolish more than 50% of the existing single - family dwelling and add three bedrooms and two bathrooms to the upper level and add a new family room, play room and library to the main level. The project would increase the floor area of the house by 500 square feet to a total of 4,023 square feet, which is greater than the 3,487 floor area ratio for this lot. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 201 -01. CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 5, 2013 4. 529 VIRGINIA DRIVE: File No. 713110; Steve Stroub, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling. The project would add a new master bedroom suite, two bathrooms and a new entry, convert an existing recreation room into a garage and expand other existing portions of the house. The project would result in a gross floor area of 2,029 square feet and cover 2,031 square feet (25.0 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 055 - 081 -14. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling on property located at 529 Virginia Drive. The property is currently developed with a single - family dwelling. The existing 1,669 square foot single - family dwelling consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, three bedrooms, one bathroom, and a recreation room. As part of an interior remodel and addition to the existing home, the proposal for the main floor would add 306 square feet to incorporate a new entry, expanded kitchen, dining room, one bathroom, powder room, and a master bedroom suite. A proposed 511 square foot addition would be constructed on a lower level of the existing home, which would consist of two new bedrooms, a bathroom, and storage. The existing recreation room would be converted back into a garage with a new garage door towards the existing driveway. Other proposed additions would be a new covered porch located in the front of the house which would connect a stairway with a glass guardrail to a new pathway to the existing driveway and two new skylights on the roof above the new master bathroom and the new entry. The proposal would result in a floor area of 2,029 square feet, which is below the maximum floor area guideline for the property (2,812 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,031 square feet (25.0 %), which is below the maximum 30 percent permitted in the R -1 zone. David Holscher, architect, said that this was a minor remodel and modernization of a mid - century design and they have kept it relatively simple. He said that they went down in the design instead of up and he believed that that this is an unusual approach, in his experience. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 Becky Pringle thanked the new owner and the architect for a design that would not interfere with anyone's view. She said that she looks directly down on the house and her concern was the two new skylights that would shine up the hill into her house. She said that she would like to see the bigger skylight made a little smaller and added that it was very important to have downlights on the exterior lighting. She appreciated the removal of the eucalyptus trees and hoped that the planned vegetation did not include trees. Mr. Holscher stated that the project did not include planting any trees. He stated that they would install downlights for all exterior lighting and that the skylight would be tinted with no lights inside. Boardmember Emberson suggested that a rear parapet could be installed around the skylight to prevent light from being viewed from above. Mr. Holscher expressed concern about the appearance if that was done. Boardmember Emberson suggested tilting the skylight. Boardmember Tollini asked and confirmed with Mr. Holscher that it was possible to raise the skylight on one side by 12 inches to give it a slope. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Emberson said that she liked the design and thought that it was a very modest proposal. She said that tilting the skylight would solve the problem for the uphill neighbor. She struggled with the removal of so many the trees. Mr. Holscher said that they have already planted privets, and Boardmember Emberson stated that she was happy with that. Boardmember Tollini said that he was concerned about the amount of glazing but was completely underwhehned when he saw the site partly because of the amount of vegetation and partly because he expected it to be taller. He said that he would like to tilt the skylight and thought that more screening could be added on the north edge of the property. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that the privets would provide good screening. He thought that this was a good design. Vice -Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that this was a modest proposal and an improvement to the existing property. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Cousins) that the request for 529 Virginia Drive 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 raise the largest skylight 12 inches at the rear. Vote: 4 -0. 5. 21 GILMARTIN DRIVE: File No. 713101; Tenny Doone, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to a previously approved new single - family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The project would relocate a previously approved 498 square foot basement area, which would no longer meet the definition of a basement. The project would increase the size of the house by 498 square feet to a total of TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11/21/13 4,158 square feet of floor area, which would be greater than the 3,660 floor area ratio for this lot. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 253 -32. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to a new single - family dwelling with a floor area exception on property located at 21 Gilmartin Drive. The property is currently a vacant lot with a previously approved new single- family dwelling. The proposed addition would relocate a 498 square foot home theater from basement level to the lower level in rear of the new single - family dwelling. There is no maximum allowable lot coverage for the subject site because of established primary and secondary building envelopes within the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan. The proposed addition would be within the established primary building envelope. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 4,158 square feet, which is above the maximum floor area guideline for the property (3,660 square feet); therefore, the applicant request for a floor area exception. Al Von Der Werth, applicant, stated that the movie theater under the garage was planned previously and their engineer asked if that could be moved. He said that the room would not add any square footage on the exterior that was not already approved. The public hearing was opened. Gary Wolk said that he is the uphill neighbor and was displeased with the roof. He said that the 2008 plans did not include this media room/basement and without including this room they are already at the floor area for the house, He believed that this was a calculated move to increase property value and he asked the Board to enforce the zoning laws as they exist. Mr. Von Der Werth stated that the request was not a calculated move and was only in response to the engineer's suggestion to move it. He said that this location is safer and would work better for the house. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said that he was of two minds about this project. He said that this was still basically a basement the way it is laid out and involved just moving the theater from one end of the house to the other, but would be 500 square feet over the allowable floor area and he struggled with that. Boardmember Emberson said that she was also torn, but the project was not really different except for the way the basement area was measured it becomes livable space and she believed that they were just trying to save money. Boardmember Tollini thought that this project was fine and a lot of the space would be subterranean. He noted that there are a lot of large houses on Gilmartin Drive and this house would fit right in, especially with the immediate neighbors. He said that the DRB approved the house previously and nothing would be accomplished by changing the design back. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 10 11/21/13 Boardmember Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that she can easily make the exception findings. She said that it would fit in with the neighborhood and putting the theater in that location made no difference to her. Vice -Chair Cousins thought that because it would have no effect on the exterior of the building or on what was previously approved, he supported the project. He felt that it would be an unnecessary expenditure to move the theater back to its previous location. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 21 Gilmartin Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3 -1 (Kricensky opposed). F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #18 OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Tollini requested the following change on page 7, paragraph 1, line 3: "He said that he has heard resistance...." Vice -Chair Cousins requested the following changes: • Page 3, paragraph 5: "Chair Chong sod agreed..." • Page 7, paragraph 3: "...the skylight was a very prominent feature..." should be changed to "...the popup was a very prominent feature..." Boardmember Emberson requested the following changes: • Page 2, paragraph 5, last sentence: "...requested fef a floor area exception." • Page 5, last paragraph: "...window farminla..." should be changed to "...window ID framing..." • Page 6, paragraph 3, last sentence: " ...need more room then..." should be changed to "...need more room, then..." ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky /Emberson) to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2013 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4 -0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 11 11/21/13 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes- Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard December 5, 2013 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #20 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.00 PM Present: Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Tollini and Kricensky Absent: None Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley, and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) None OLD BUSINESS 1. 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 -stoiy 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. Withdrawn PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 3 PALMER COURT: File No. 713109; Tracey Turner, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The project would demolish more than 50% of the existing single - family dwelling and add three bedrooms and two bathrooms to the upper level and add a new family room, play room and library to the main level. The project would increase the floor area of the house by 500 square feet to a total of 4,023 square feet, which is greater than the 3,487 floor area ratio for this lot. Assessor's Parcel No. 055 - 201 -01. Continued to January 16, 2014 3. 42 -46 MAIN STREET: File No. 51311; ACV Argo Tiburon L.P., Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for consideration of a sign program for a downtown commercial building. The project would allow (1) wall sign and multiple window graphic signs for each tenant and directional signs on the existing commercial building. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 102 -27. Approved 3 -0 -1 (Chong recused, Emberson opposed) Design Review Board Action Minutes December 5, 2013 Page 1 4. 2 LAS PALMAS WAY: File No. 21311; Cyrus Ansari, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The project would add a new family room, 1 %2 bathrooms and a one -car garage to the first floor on the northern end of the house, and a new concrete wall would be constructed along the property line facing Las Palmas Way. The project would result in a gross floor area of 2,736 square feet and cover 2,523 square feet (31.5 %) of the site, which exceeds the 30.0% maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 zone. The proposed addition would extend to within 3 feet, 3 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 15 foot front yard setback required in the R -1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 261 -04. Approved 5 -0 5. 154 ROCK HILL ROAD: File No. 21327; Bruce and Kathleen Scollin, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced front yard setback. The project would expand the upper level living room by enclosing an adjacent covered deck and expand the existing kitchen on the same level. The project would result in a gross floor area of 2,750 square feet and cover 2,582 square feet (14.8 %) of the site. The proposed addition would extend to within 20 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. 039 - 151 -24. Approved 5 -0 6. 125 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: File No. 21328; Jeff Greenberg, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The project would add a master bedroom suite and other exterior alterations to the house, including six new skylights. The project would result in a gross floor area of 2,200 square feet and cover 2,570 square feet (34.5 %) of the site, which exceeds the 30.0% maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 -B -A zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 171 -03. Approved 5 -0 MINUTES 6. Regular Meeting of November 21, 201' ) Approved as amended 5 -0 ADJOURNMENT At 8:10 PM Design Review Board Action Minutes December 5, 2013 Page 2 DIGEST TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Regular Meeting Tiburon, CA 94920 December 11, 2013 — 7:30 PM ACTION MINUTES 74 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.30 PM Chair Weller, Vice Chair Weiner, Conunissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Kulik All Commissioners Present 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 Plamiing 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 Cominittee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING REVIEW RESTRICTIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY SCHOOL; FILE #10404; Congregation Kol Shofar, Owner and Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038 - 351 -34 [DWI Approved 4 -0 2. 1 ROUND HILL TERRACE: REQUEST TO AMEND THE ROUND HILL OAKS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #36) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR LOT 1; FILE #31303; Ian Schwartz, Owner; Ivan Lukrich, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 058- 301 -39 [DWI (Continued from November 13, 2013) [DWI Denied 3 -1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of November 13, 2013 Approved As Amended ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 PM a121113 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 1 NOTICE OF MEETING V CANCELLATION THE REGULAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR 1 THURSDAY, JANUARY 2, 2014 HAVE BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014 AN WATROUS, SECRETARY NO'T'ICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION o THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014 HAAVE BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT MEETING OF TIME PLANNING COMMISSION STILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2014 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (" Fp1RFAX, Cq� /O9 ORPORA'TEO 9 T O i N OF FAIRFAX 142 BOLINAS ROAD, FAIRFAX, CALIFORNIA 94930 ( 4 1 5) 4 5 3- 1 5 8 4 / F A X ( 4 1 5) 4 5 3 - 1 6 1 5 01) NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION FAIRFAX TOWN COUNCIL At its December 4, 2013 regular meeting, the Fairfax Town Council Members were sworn in and the Council reorganized, as follows: MAYOR DAVID WEINSOFF VICE MAYOR LARRY BRAGMAN COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA COLER COUNCILMEMBER RENEE GODDARD COUNCILMEMBER JOHN REED Michele Gardner, Town Clerk December 5, 2013 Printed on Recycled Paper City of Larkspur - Ju 400 Magnolia Avcnue, Larkspur, California 94959 Telephone: (415) 927 -5110 Fax: (415) 927 -5022 Vvebsite: www.ciryflarkspunorg NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION On December 11, 2013, at a Special City Council meeting, the Larkspur City Council reorganized as follows: Ann Morrison, Mayor Larry Chu, Vice Mayor Kevin Haroff, Councilmember Dan Hillmer, Councilmember Catherine Way, Councilmember Larkspur City Council meetings are the first and third Wednesday of the month and start at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Cynthia Huisman, CMC City Clerk City of Larkspur December 12, 2013 Planning: (415) 927 -5038 Parks & Recreation: (415) 927 -6746 Public Works: (415) 927 -5017 Tavin Cities Police: (415) 927 -5150 0 E C FF Y; E D DEC 1 .., it: ;,j 'TOWN CUERK TOWR OF TIBURON! Library: (415) 927 -5005 Fire. (41.5) 927 -5110 THE CITY OF NOVATO CALIFORNIA 922 Machin Avenue Novato, CA 94945 415/899 -8900 FAX 415/899 -8213 www.novato.org Mayor Eric Lucan Mayor Pro Tern Jeanne MacLeamy Councihnembers Denise Athas Pat Eklund Madeline Kellner City Manager Michael S. Frank G) DIGEST REORGANIZATION NOVATO CITY COUNCIL At its December 10, 2013 meeting, the Novato City Council reorganized as follows: Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember /Sheri Hartz/ Sheri Hartz City Clerk Eric Lucan Jeanne MacLeamy Denise Athas Pat Eklund Madeline Kellner TOWN Gi -CERK TOWN 01-- I IBURON Tom McInerney Mayor John D. Wright Vice Mayor dL) Kay Coleman Councilmember T H E T O W N O f SAN ANSELMO -,t 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 -2682 www.townofsananselmo.org (415) 258 -4600 1 Fax (415) 459 -2477 UVV I'J RK To\niri of TIBURON NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION SAN ANSELMO TOWN COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo reorganized at its Regular Meeting held on December 10, 2013 as follows: Mayor Vice Mayor Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Tom McInerney John D. Wright Kay Coleman Ford Greene Doug Kelly Ford Greene Councilmember Doug Kelly Councilinember The San Anselmo Town Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960. Joanne Kessel Administrative Services Technician Town of San Anselmo December 11, 2013 �F 5AUg� ;o IN cO° CI T Y OF SAUSALITO DIGEST e.) 420 Litho Street • Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 289 -4100 www.ci.sausalito.ca.us NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION SAUSALITO CITY COUNCIL On December 10, 2013, the Sausalito City Council elected a new Mayor and Vice Mayor and reorganized as follows: MAYOR VICE MAYOR COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER EC,E L DILU 13 202 TOWN CLE=RK TOWN OF TIBURON RAY WITHY THOMAS THEODORES JONATHAN LEONE LINDA PFEIFER HERB WEINER If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Debbie Pagliaro City Clerk FAX NUMBERS: Administration: (415) 289 -4167 Library: (415) 331 -7943 Recreation: (415) 289 -4189 Community Development: (415) 339 -2256 Public Works: (415) 289 -4138 _ DIGEST SAUS' CITY F SAUSALIT O jai + 420 Litho Street Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 289 -4100 �`��/ ww.w.ci.sausalito.ca.us cS , November 27, 2013 Todd A. Cusimano, Chairman Malin County Major Crimes Task Force 3501. Civic Center Drive, Room 145 San Rafael CA 94903 Dear Chief Cusimano: Thank you for your letter dated November 20, 2013. The City of Sausalito appreciates the work that the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force ( MCMCTF) provides to the County of Marin. The City appreciates your encouragement and request for the City to reconsider its intent to withdraw from MCMMCTF. After careful consideration and months of budget discussions last spring, the,City is, clear with its intent; and. has prioritized the Sausalito Police Departmeri.t's. budget "and operations to focus on local public safety issues, specifically related to violent comes, property crimes, traffic accidents, traffic enforcement, and the overall service delivery to the Sausalito community. I would like to take a moment to remind you, and the Oversight Committee, that the City of Sausalito continues to be open to work with the MCMCTF to establish a shared service approach utilizing the Detective Pool that was recently established and is successfully serving the Central and Southern Malin Towns and Cities. As City Manager, 1. appreciated your leadership and the w.iLlingness of several of the Oversight Committee members to explore alternatives. Unfortunateiy none of the alternatives that were discussed during the past two years moved forward with any momentum. At a later time. if there is interest to continue these discussions related in improving public safety, the City of Sausalito would be pleased to be invited to the table. Administration: (415) 289 -4167 Recrea. on: (415) 289.4189 My very best, All, Adarn W. Politzer City Manager, City. of Sausalito _ .. , 415.289.4166 • i FAX NUMBERS: Community Development: (415) 339 -2256 Library: (415) 331 -7943 Public Works: (415) 289 4138 1 NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA fib a r— r.71 Local Agency Formation Commission of Marin County Thursday, December 12, 2013 City of San Rafael, Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Chair or designee will consider a motion to approve the agenda as prepared by the Executive Officer with any requests to remove or rearrange items by members or staff. PUBLIC COMMENT This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not agendized. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing or will be placed on the Commission's agenda for consideration at a later meeting. Speakers are limited to three minutes unless otherwise authorized by the Chair or designee. Action or Possible Action Items Below: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS) All items calendared as consent are considered ministerial or non - substantive and subject to a single motion approval. With the concurrence of the Chair or designee, a Commissioner may request discussion of an item on the consent calendar. 1. Regular Meeting Minutes (Action) The Commission will consider approving minutes prepared by staff for the October 10, 2013 meeting. Members Arnold, Baker, Condon, Heller, and Rodoni were present. 2. Current Financial Report (Action) The Commission will review a report comparing budgeted and actual transactions for the fiscal year through the month of November. The report projects the Commission is on pace to finish the fiscal year with an operating surplus of $26,056 or 8.0 %. The report also identifies specific financial transactions processed by the agency since the last report was presented at the October meeting. The report is being presented to the Commission to accept and file. View Staff Report 3. Progress Report on Strategic Plan (Action) The Commission will review a report on progress made to date in meeting goals and implementing strategies u1 the current year strategic plan. The report notes most recent activities have been aimed at addressing the Commissions goal of improved community outreach as well as serving as a venue to discuss regional service issues of interest to other local agencies. The report is being presented to the Commission to formally accept as well as provide any additional direction to staff with respect to achieving agency goals for the rest of the calendar year. View Staff Report MARIN LAFCO December 12, 2013 Agenda Page 2 of 3 4. Approval of Meeting Calendar for the First Half of 2014 (Action) The Commission will consider approving a meeting calendar for the first six months of 2014. It is recommended the Commission schedule three regular meetings during this period falling on February 13s', April 10th, and June 12th. It is also recommended the Commission schedule one special meeting on January 22nd for the Commission to hold its annual strategic workshop. View Staff Report 5. Notice of Expo Commissioner Terms in 2014 (Information) The Commission will receive a report identifying the member terms scheduled to expire in the upcoming calendar year. The report is being presented for information. View Staff Report 6. Existing and New Proposals on File with the Commission (Information) The Commission will receive a report summarizing all proposals currently on file with the agency. The report is being presented for information. View Staff Report 7. New Legislation for 2014 (Information) The Commission will receive a report summarizing pertinent new legislation affecting LAFCOs that becomes effective in 2014. This includes legislation strengthening existing provisions involving expedited island annexation proceedings. The report is being presented to the Commission for information with an opportunity for members to provide direction to staff on any related matters as needed. View Staff Report 8. CALAFCO Quarterly Report (Information) The Commission will receive the most recent quarterly report prepared by the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. The report is being presented for information. View Staff Report PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) None BUSINESS ITEM(S) 9. Commendation of Service for Barbara Heller (Action) The Commission will consider adoption of a resolution of commendation for former Commissioner Barbara Heller for her 15 years of service to the agency and to the people of Marin County. 10. Update on Countywide Water Municipal Service Review (Discussion) The Commission will receive an update on the status of its scheduled study on countywide water service for discussion. The update summarizes current work performed to date and notes staff anticipates the Commission holding a noticed public hearing to approve a formal scope of analysis at its next regular meeting. Commissioners are asked to review and provide feedback on the initial course of study and provide direction to staff on any related matter going forward. View Staff Report MARIN LAFCO December 12, 2013 Agenda Page 3 of 3 11. Strategic Planning Workshop: Agenda Preview (Discussion) The Commission will receive and discuss a draft outline of potential topics for the agency's pending annual strategic workshop tentatively scheduled for January 22, 2014. Commission discussion will inform the preparation of an actual agenda for formal posting in advance of the workshop. View Staff Report 12. Guest Presentation from CALAFCO / Set Time for 7:30 P.M. (Discussion) The Commission will receive and discuss a presentation from the new Executive Director of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, Pamela Miller, with respect to current and planned memberslup services. CLOSED SESSION 13. Potential Litigation Under Government Code 54956.9 The Commission will meet in closed session regarding one item involving potential litigation. A verbal report will be provided with respect to any actions. EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORT COMMISSIONER ANNOUCEMENTS AND REQUESTS ADTOURNMENT TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING Pursuant to GC Section 84308, if you wish to participate in the above proceedings, you or your agent are prohibited from making a campaign contribution of $250 or more to any Commissioner. 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 during the 12 months preceding the decision, in the proceeding that Commissioner must disqualify himself or herself from the decision. However, disqualification is not required if the Commissioner returns that campaign contribution within 30 days of learning both about the contribution and the fact that you are a participant in the proceedings.