The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2014-03-28TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of March 17 — 28, 2014 Tiburon 1. Memo — Director Admin. Services — Response to Councilmember Tollini's Question Regarding Financial Audit 2. Letter and Petition — Suggestion for Safe Play Area for Off -Lease Dogs at Tom Price Park 3. Letter — Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood Group — Suggestions for Improvements to Traffic Safety, Congestion, and Transportation Issues 4. Letter — Town Clerk — Proposed Event at Shoreline Park — October 11, 2014 5. Application to Board or Commission —Kenna Norris — Heritage & Arts Commission Agendas & Minutes 6: Minutes — Design Review Board — March 6, 2014 7. Minutes —Planning Commission— March 12, 2014 8. Action Minutes —Design Review Board —March 20, 2014 9. Action Minutes —Planning Commission— March 26, 2014 10. Agenda — Design Review Board — April 3, 2014 Regional a) Sierra Club Yodeler - April /May 2014 * Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 MEMORANDUM Date: March 20, 2014 To: Town Council Town Manager From: Director of Administrative Services DIGEST /• Subject: Response to Councilmember Tollini's Question regarding Financial Audit At the March 5, 2014 Town Council meeting, Councilmember Tollini questioned the variance in the "change in fund balance" for the General Fund comparing statistical information on page 16 and page 36. At that time I was unable to definitively answer the question and it was recommended that I provide a memorandum to the Council at a later date with an explanation. I have communicated with Ralph Marcello, the Town's independent auditor, and he has advised me that page 16 is correct and that page 36 was inaccurate because of the reclassifications of transfers in and out due to the two large capital improvement projects. The net error was for $428. I requested Ralph to provide a revised page 36 based on his response, which is attached. This revised page will be included in the original audit document at Town Hall. Respectfully, Heidi Bigall Director of Administrative Services Attachments TOWN OF TIBURON Budgetary Comparison Information General Fund Year Ended June 30, 2013 Resources (inflows) Property taxes Other taxes Franchise fees Fines and penalties Use of money and property Intergovernmental and agency Licenses and permits Charges for services Other revenue Transfers in Amounts Available for Appropriation Charges to Appropriations (outflow) Town administration Community development Public safety Public works Legislative boards and commissions Non - departmental Capital improvement projects Transfers out Total Charges to Appropriations Surplus (Deficit) $.(4,085,019) $ (4,190,019) $ (940,504) $ 3,249,515 36 Variance with Final Budget Budget Amounts (unaudited) Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) $ 4,189,092 $ 4,189,092 $ 4,220,957 $ 31,865 1,080,925 1,080,925 1,306,463 225,538 593,587 593,587 694,330 100,743 113,500 113,500 404,342 290,842 39,500 39,500 28,531 (10,969) 45,500 45,500 827,165 781,665 810,250 810,250 908,612 98,362 290,600 290,600 479,779 189,179 99,785 99,785 172,202 72,417 1,620,242 1,620,242 1,170,040 (450,202) 8,882,981 8,882,981 10,212,421 1,329,440 1,411,067 1,411,067 1,232,060 179,007 1,017,764 1,017,764 964,193 53,571 2,932,981 3,037,981 2,972,621 65,360 1,304,844 1,304,844 1,317,348 (12,504) 41,500 41,500 26,723 14,777 2,101,344 2,101,344 418,259 1,683,085 3,365,500 3,365,500 3,154,735 210,765 793,000 793,000 1,066,986 (273,986) 12, 968, 000 13, 073, 000 11,152,925 1,920,075 $.(4,085,019) $ (4,190,019) $ (940,504) $ 3,249,515 36 DIGEST MAR 20 2014 To the City and Town Councils of Belvedere and Tiburon: We, the dog owners of Belvedere and Tiburon read with interest the a• recent article in the ARK, February 26, 2014 by Nicole Jones, regarding the Belvedere City Council's ruling on a dog leash enforcement ordinance. Some residents of Belvedere have complained about dogs "running at large ". While this does not seem to be an overriding concern of the majority of local citizens, we dog owners have some thoughts about this issue. One solution to the complaints would be to have a safe area that dogs can play off leash, without fear of running into the street or running into bikers or pedestrians on the "Old Rail Trail" that leads into the town of Tiburon. Many local dog owners have an informal gathering at the Tom Price Park at the junction of Tiburon Boulevard and Lyford Drive in the mornings between 8 -11 AM and late afternoon between 4 -6 PM. However, there is no barrier to keep either dogs or children playing ball at the park from running into dangerous Tiburon Boulevard, or running across the bike and walking path into bikers and pedestrians. We have seen young children, as well as dogs, running after errant balls into the path of baby strollers, bikers, and walkers along the Old Rail Trail. We suggest that a dense shrubbery "fence" on the west side of the path, from the existing shrubbery at the north end of the Green, connecting with the fence of the adjacent tennis courts would be an attractive addition to the park and act as a deterrent to dogs and children running into the street, pedestrians, and bikers. Currently, that area is bordered by banks of raw dirt with no landscaping; an unattractive entry into our beautiful towns. Such a shrubbery barrier would not only enhance the area, but also provide local dogs and children with a safer environment to play and exercise. Additionally, this might satisfy those citizens who have a concern about dogs "running at large ". When dog owners come home from work or their daily activities, they would like to have a safe area close by to exercise their dogs. The Tiburon Peninsula is one of the few areas in Marin County that does not have an off -leash dog area with a safe barrier for both dogs and citizens. The following communities have off -leash dog parks: Sausalito: Sausalito Dog Park - Bridgeway and Ebbtide Avenues Mill Valley: Mill Valley Dog Run - Sycamore Ave At Camino Alto Larkspur: Canine Commons - Doherty, East of Magnolia San Anselmo: Redhill Community Dog Park -Shaw Drive or Sunny Hills Drive San Rafael: Field of Dogs -Civic Center Drive behind the Marin County Civic Center Novato: Ohair Park Dog Park - Novato Blvd at Sutro Petaluma: Rocky Memorial Dog Park -W. Casa Grande Road We propose that the city and town councils of Belvedere and Tiburon consider our suggestion for a safe play area at the "Tom Price" Park that enhances the entry to our towns and addresses the concerns of some of our citizens. SIGN YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, and TELEPHONE NUMBER: L1 CL e� C� ��ti2OD, C{a Nls 3z �/ X33 I ` 2 L 13 �15'f (f d4k- l/ti l,�jGjCQGt dot q/, , Z7z 77`f fie J i�� (��n � �� Gbc�� w r (Z. C /Mcl yre n ��.i' -S INI yI5 q 3 s- 3 o qS- P„ S �- c> '`, h..,, . c.: i yfzP U'LLN.SS A ✓8 `I`r G� 7f-7 iZ `l y?.� I ''a 1 5 f (S Rc ( V eA, ✓e I c C, c, 77� LA � z� 1 (�� -5 CTI `(15 135. �,, ye= fj. 7 4 5 l�Zc e 43 - LtuL[o L � 71Y�gLA-1(.uTj ),�UjjYp Q 33 171evco-•�,__ �_� j�b��..,� 2 72! - �z�Fr Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood Group March 24, 2014 Mr. Robert Betts, Planning Manager Marin Transit 711 Grand Avenue # 110 San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Mr. Betts: DIGESTS RECEIVE-, MAR 2 6 2014 TO1MN MANAGERS Urr TOWN Of TIBURON Thank you for meeting with Sara Klein and Ken Weil on March 18 to discuss the transportation needs in our area. Both Ken and Sara were impressed with your receptiveness to our concerns. We do hope that it is possible to have community input on any future changes to bus services in our area before decisions are made to implement them. HTNG would like to see a collaborative, inter - agency approach to addressing traffic safety, congestion and the best use of transportation funds in our area. Specifically, we are addressing traffic congestion and safety issues on Tiburon Boulevard and on Hilary Drive between Rock Hill Road and Avenida Miraflores during bell times. We have the following suggestions: Investigate the possibility of providing bus transportation for children to Tiburon schools. Perhaps the approach that is being discussed in Corte Madera to provide bus service for the new Cove School might be a possibility here in Tiburon. Currently parents have few options in getting their children to school safely. Car traffic during bell times is a major contributor to traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard. The section of Hilary Drive between St. Hilary School and the Del Mar School also experiences significant traffic during bell times. This section of Hilary Drive is also used as an alternative to driving on Tiburon Boulevard. Too many drivers ignore the speed limit and other traffic regulations. We are requesting that the newly proposed run at 8:15 PM of the 219f ferry feeder service be revised so that it does not run on Hilary Drive between Avenida Miraflores and Rock Hill Road. Alternatively we are suggesting that stops be made at Rock Hill Road and Tiburon Boulevard as well as Avenida Miraflores and Tiburon Boulevard. Driving buses that are under utilized and are not regularly used by local residents on this stretch of Hilary Drive puts unnecessary traffic on a residential street that is already heavily trafficked. The remaining routes of the 219f could also be rerouted in the same manner. However, if appropriate, the use of Hilary Drive to transport local Tiburon children to schools should not be excluded from consideration provided that traffic regulations are enforced for the safety of children and residents alike. Thanks again for meeting with Sara Klein and Ken Weil to discuss our transportation needs. Please let us know of any further developments and thoughts of how we might be able to move the process forward. Sincerely, 4 , 4-0"a Sandra Smith, Coordinator Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood Group 681 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 cc: Peggy Curran Steven Herzog Town ofTibumn • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • tv�cy.d ,cajuss March 20, 2014 Mr. Hank McWhinney, President Point Tiburon Bayside Homeowner's Association 111 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 SUBJECT: Proposed Event at Shoreline Park Dear Hank, Alice Fredericks Mayor Frank Doyle Vice Mayor Jim Fraser Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell Councilmember Greetings and I hope you are doing well. Erin Tollini Councibnember I understand that you are currently the President of the Point Tiburon Bayside Homeowners Association. As such, I am notifying you of an item that may be of interest to you and the homeowners in your association. It is a special event permit application by the Belvedere - Tiburon Landmarks Society to stage a fundraiser in a tent next to the Donahue Building Margaret A. Curran (Railroad Museum) on Saturday night, October 11, 2014. Town Manager Because the Town's Shoreline Park Policy limits special events in that area to daytime hours *, and because the proposed Landmarks event is an evening event (dinner /dance), Town staff has referred the request to the Town Council for its consideration. The Landmarks Society leadership has assured staff that its request is for a one -time event only, and will not be a recurring, annual event. The Town Council meeting date is Wednesday, April 2, at 7:30 p.m., at Town Hall. We ask that you notify your association members of the proposed event and hearing date in case they wish to attend the meeting. Thai* you for your cooperation, and please confirm with us when the HOA has been notified. We would also be happy to notify your management office of this hearing, if you will be kind enough to forward me the contact name and address. My email address is dcrane(a.townoftiburon.ora. Many thanks Diane Crane Ia Di Tiburon Town Clerk *Town- sponsored events like the 50a' Anniversary Celebration are excluded from this policy. i TOWN OF TIBURON t COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and returning it to Town Hall. The application form can also be found on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. E C F, � V E 0 N;a? z 6 zui4 /A�Lo � Diane Crane Iacopi TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order ( #1 Being the Greatest Interest) PLANNING PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS DESIGN REVIEW JT. RECREATION COMMITTEE �— HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LIBRARY MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING 1 F� PERSONAL DATA (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE -;A RESUME MAY BE. ATTACHED AS WELL) _ . r y NAME: K?-v,, V-, Oti y'v ; s MAILING ADDRESS: lot Nko t-ooX d 1� 2412 TELEPHONE: Home: At5`957 -5 Work: 4i5-bc/ 79o7FaxNo. PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) 2 DATE SUBMITTED: 3 -zC =lam REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OFINTEREST 4 1, Date Application Received: Appointed to: Date Term Expires: Hall Use -- - - - - - -- -- Interview Date: 2 (Date) Length of Term: tcco " s, , �e V4 av�O T, C�f Lo yw Se yh j f ✓o v o �d f n.• k,As' �i� n ti— r,14sa tlr_ �M -F�7 L, ,I J 1,h- I J LkAl' in /�i 4 A/0 C._9 V AAIL I -i fM.. — r S3 ' m , ' c tw c,/-4- ( -�.en i 0 i. F, �r -" X . C� w v 1l0 ' 1 O C7 , per, APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS 4 1, Date Application Received: Appointed to: Date Term Expires: Hall Use -- - - - - - -- -- Interview Date: 2 (Date) Length of Term: tcco " s, , �e V4 6. MINUTES #4 DIGEST TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2014 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong; Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: None Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None STAFF BRIEFING - None OLD BUSINESS Boardmember Emberson recused herself from this item. 1. 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 add a new family room, play room and library to the main level and create a new basement level. The project would increase the floor area of the house to a calculated total of 3,708 square feet, which is greater than the 3,487 floor area ratio for this lot. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 201 -01. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a floor area exception. This application was first reviewed at the February 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. The previous project design included a request for a floor area exception for a house that would have been 589 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. At the meeting, the consensus of the Board was that although the architectural design of the proposed house was an improvement over the design of the existing house, the requested floor area exception could not be supported and the proposed house design would appear visually larger than the existing house. Two of the three Boardmembers indicated that they could not support an exception for this application. The request was continued to allow the applicant to pursue changes to the project design. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The floor area of the house was reduced by 364 square feet on the first level, by 4 square feet on the upper level and by 275 square feet in the basement. The revised design would result in a gross floor area of 3,629 square feet with a 679 square foot garage (with a 2,227 square foot basement), which would still be 221 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is once again requested for this project. Ken Linsteadt, architect, stated that the feedback they received at the last meeting was that the house was too big and although neighbors were in full support of the project and stylistically the look was right, the Board could not grant the floor area exception. He noted that there was also concern about massing because they requested to reallocate the floor area from mostly a one story house with a master bedroom at the second floor to having all of the bedrooms upstairs. He said that since the last meeting they removed area to get to the exact size of the existing house and were now proposing the same amount of floor area as the existing house. Planning Manager Watrous clarified this statement, stating that the architect had indicated that they measured the floor area of what was actually constructed. Mr. Watrous stated that the building and planning plans show the floor area of the house at or below the FAR and the Town did not approve a floor area exception for additional floor area. Mr. Linsteadt said the house looks the same as what is on the approved plans, but when they measured its square footage, measurements revealed that it was bigger than what was approved, which they did not expect. To staff's point, they are coming to the Board for an FAR exception; however, they are also asking for the exact same size house that currently exists. Boardmember Tollini asked for the difference in floor area between the approved and existing house size. After some discussion with staff, Mr. Linsteadt confirmed that their request was 144 square feet over the allowable FAR and noted that they have reduced the garage space to be 602 square feet. Mr. Linsteadt gave a PowerPoint presentation and explained that their strategy was essentially to keep the existing second floor the way it was last time. He said that the southeastern corner was revised to add a two -story element where there was only a one -story element. He stated that the changes to the front entry of the house would remove the one story element from the front of the house, which would allow more of a view corridor for neighbors above and more green space around the house. He said that they removed about 300 square feet from the main house and removed 70 square feet from the garage for a total of 441 square feet since the last meeting. He said that the net result was that their site coverage was reduced and their permeable area was greater, which would have a positive effect on the house massing to the street. He explained changes to the roofline and stated that the current fireplace on the south side that reaches up to the full two stories and a roof that reaches over a balcony would be removed. Boardmember Cousins referred to the story poles and asked and confirmed that there was no story pole shown on the line of the upper mansard hip. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 Jim Newman said that he had not seen the revised plans and thought that nothing was truly changed as far as the second story, as all square footage was removed from the first floor. He said that the one positive change was that the chimney would be removed. He believed that the renderings were a little misleading because a lot of tree planting covers the house. He felt that the owner had been very upfront as far as his concerns, but thought that if the view corridor stayed the same the revised plans would not affect them any more than the original plans. Joseph Bell reiterated his comments of the last hearing and said that he again disagreed with the staff report. He said that the owner had been very solicitous of his input and responded to his concerns at every level. He liked the revised design and thought that it would improve the look of the neighborhood. He said that there are many large houses on Palmer Court that have large second stories and he did not know why this was such a big concern. He felt that the project had been approached in a constructive and neighborly way and he and his mother fully support it. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini stated that his primary issue at the last hearing was compliance with the FAR and that it was a maxed out house getting larger both in terms of numbers and visually. He stated that the exact measurements of the existing house were in question, but at this point the proposed home would be approximately the same as the existing house. He thought that the house would not feel as large when viewed from the street because the northwesterly portion would be pushed back into the main fagade as opposed to coming out towards the street with its own roofline. He felt that this was a meaningful change even though it was not a second story element. He agreed that the chimney and roof overhang create issues and shadows on the upper story. He said that he was happy with the project and supported it as redesigned. He said that the floor area would be consistent with what is there now. He said that the house would be an improvement from everyone's viewpoint as well as from a bulk and mass standpoint. He said that he was able to make the exception findings for consistency with the neighborhood and appreciated the more detailed landscape plan. Chair Chong asked for additional explanation of the existing square floor area and what was previously approved. Mr. Watrous explained that the DRB approved a 3,459 square foot house and that was reflected on the building plans. The applicants have indicated they have made measurements, which have not been provided to or verified by the Town, which indicate that the as -built house is larger than 3,459 square feet. He stated that this does not mean that the Town ever approved anything larger than 3,459 square feet. Boardmember Kricensky asked and confirmed there was no approved exception for the existing house. He said that the existing house has its place somewhere, but stands out as a different piece of architecture in this neighborhood. He wondered how the existing house was approved by the Board, as it appeared to be inconsistent with the neighborhood. He recalled a request for a new house in his neighborhood several years ago that, in terms of architectural vernacular, was not dissimilar to the relationship between the existing house and this neighborhood, and was denied by DRB because it was out of character with the neighborhood. He stated that the Board is supposed to follow the codes and they are doing its duty unless they can find reasons for an exception. He thought that the existing house size was a phantom number at this time. He noted TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 that there is no approved exception, so the applicants were asking for more than what was approved regardless of what is purportedly the size of the house now. He realized that there were extenuating circumstances, but said that he could not make the findings for the exception. Boardmember Cousins said that the existing house is very prominent. He said that if the existing house is larger than what was approved, that does not set a precedent for the size of the new house. He thought that the reduction of the porch element would make a difference, but his biggest concern was the amount of building at the second floor level and he felt that this revision did not change that. He stated that the story poles only show the ridge and not the full extent of the roof, so the actual volume of the house would be bigger than shown. He said that he still had the same reservations as before for the project. Chair Chong noted that he was seeing this application for the first time. He said that the location of the lot at the entrance to Palmer Court makes this lot unique to itself. He thought that the new home would end up having less of an impact not necessarily because of the design but more of its style. He said that he was torn on the whole floor area and wondered whether it was fair to build a house similar in size to a home that was larger than it was approved. He did not see the impact issues, but felt that if the Board was starting over with major changes, it should consider other houses in the area and their style. Boardmember Kricensky said that he understood the reasoning in the staff report. He said that the two story mass, even with the gambrel roof, would have a different feel and would improve the view corridor. He said that he was on the fence about the massing and for him it was more about following the guidelines and trying to find a reason to approve the exception. He was not sure if the existing house was over the FAR, but said that the Town has to go by what was approved for the house. Chair Chong asked what would be the Board's opinion if this were an empty lot and designed with an FAR exception in this neighborhood with neighborhood support. Boardmember Cousins said that if it were an empty lot, he would ask the applicants to bring it in at the right size. Boardmember Kricensky said that he agreed unless they could find a reason why the exception should be approved, but said that he did not want to draw such a hard line. Boardmember Tollini said that the two findings that have to be made in order to grant the exception are compatibility with the site and compatibility with the neighborhood. He said that he was at a loss because he did not see the issue with either of these findings. He said that he took the existing house into account because this is the current context of the neighborhood. Boardmember Cousins stated that everybody agrees that the existing house does not fit in. Boardmember Tollini agreed, but asked if the Board thought that this site would be better served with the existing house than with the proposed new house. Boardmember Cousins said yes, and Boardmember Tollini said that he whole - heartedly disagreed. Chair Chong stated that after listening to Boardmember Tollini's reasoning, he supported the project. He said that overall, the house would improve the character of the neighborhood, adding that the Board has approved other new homes or total rebuilds where the Board has approved floor area exceptions. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 Boardmember Tollini said that if the applicants remove 144 square feet it would most likely come from the first floor, and he thought that then the Board would not have done anything to make the house more consistent with the site or the neighborhood. He said that the existing house is already part of the neighborhood and pretending it is a vacant lot and a new building was not reality. He also thought that there was a fairness issue in telling people they cannot build a house larger than what is currently there, but noted that the floor area was not confirmed. Chair Chong asked and confirmed with Mr. Watrous that a condition could be added to require a third party survey of the current measurements of the house. Mr. Watrous suggested that the condition could require the applicant to pay for a surveyor to be hired by the Town to determine the as -built floor area of the house. He asked the Board what would be done if the floor area was less than what the applicant's calculations were. Boardmember Tollini said that they could say that the house could be approved as long as the existing house is the same size or larger. Boardmember Cousins said that the floor area was academic, as it was not the floor area that makes the house appear so large, but the fact that the building would be spread out and very tall. His sticking point was that he could not see a reason to justify an increase over what is allowable in any circumstance. Mr. Watrous confirmed that the additional condition would read, "Prior to issuance of a building permit for this project, an as -built survey of the existing house shall be prepared, to be funded by the applicant and controlled by the Town of Tiburon, to determine the actual floor area of the existing house. If the survey indicates that the existing floor area is as large or greater than the floor area of the approved plans, no reduction in floor area shall be required for the approved dwelling. If the survey indicates that the existing floor area is less than the amount shown on the approved plans, the floor area of the approved dwelling shall be reduced to an amount no greater than that of the existing dwelling, but not less than the floor area ratio for this property." ACTION: It was WS (Kricensky /Tollini) that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the project with the conditions of approval and the additional condition requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for this project, an as-built survey of the existing house shall be prepared, to be funded by the applicant and controlled by the Town of Tiburon, to determine the actual floor area of the existing house. If the survey indicates that the existing floor area is as large or greater than the floor area of the approved plans, no reduction in floor area shall be required for the approved dwelling. If the survey indicates that the existing floor area is less than the amount shown on the approved plans, the floor area of the approved dwelling shall be reduced to an amount no greater than that of the existing dwelling, but not less than the floor area ratio for this property. Vote: 3 -1 -1 (Cousins no, Emberson recused). Boardmember Emberson returned to the meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 316/14 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 90 RED HILL CIRCLE: File No. 21401; Jincheng Li and Yiping Xie, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The project would convert an existing crawl space on the lower level into a new family room, bathroom and storage, and extend decks on the lower and upper levels of the house. The project would increase the floor area of the house by 700 square feet to a total of 3,092 square feet, which is greater than the 1,401 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The additions would extend up to both side property lines, while an 8 foot side yard setback is required in the R -3 zone. The lot coverage would increase to 45.2% of the site, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -3 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 058- 212 -27. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception, on property located at 90 Red Hill Circle. No modifications would be made to the main and upper level of the existing home, but the existing crawlspace would be converted into 700 square feet of living space, which would include one bathroom, a family room, and storage. The modification to the lower level would add two new windows and one sliding door towards the back of the home underneath the main level deck. The proposed addition on the lower level of the home would connect to a new deck. In addition, the upper level deck would be extended out to match the size of the existing main level deck. The main and upper level decks would have new glass railing and the lower deck would have wood railing. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,810 square feet (45.2 %), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -3 zone (30.0 %). Therefore, the applicant requested for a variance for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a floor area of 3,092 square feet, which is above the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the property (1,401 square feet) and therefore, the applicant has requested for a floor area exception. The existing non - conforming single- family house currently is situated zero (0) feet from the side property line on both sides of the property. The proposed addition would be within the same footprint as the existing house and also be located zero (0) feet from both side property lines. As the minimum side yard setback in R -3 zone is 8 feet, the applicant has request a variance for reduced side yard setbacks. David Marlatt, architect, stated that this neighborhood presents somewhat of an exception to the current Tiburon zoning regulations, as all houses are zero lot lines and sit on steep lots. He said that the proposed project would infill down into a space underneath the house and not extend the footprint of the house so that there would be literally no impact on neighbors. He said that the lot presents a number of extenuating circumstances for the variance requests, noting that if they complied with the zoning requirements, the house would be 7 feet wide, 1,400 square feet and have only 1,200 square feet of lot coverage. He agreed with the staff report that there is relatively TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 ample precedent for this type of project in the vicinity. He also noted that the previous owners were approved for an extension downward in 1996 but it was never built. There was no public comment. Boardmember Emberson said that she could understand why the project was approved before. She said that infill projects like this were good and that she could easily make the findings for the variances. Boardmember Cousins agreed. Boardmember Tollini supported the project and noted that he was initially curious as to what was causing the increase in lot coverage, which he learned was to allow access to the lower patio. Boardmember Kricensky echoed Boardmember Tollini's comments, as did Chair Chong ACTION: It was WS (Emberson/Cousins) that the Board determines that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301 and to approve the project. Vote: 5 -0. 3. 1762 VISTAZO WEST STREET: File No. 21402; Alfred and Michelle Zedlitz, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing two- family dwelling to convert the building into a single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess building height. The project would convert an existing three - level, two -unit condominium project into a single - family dwelling, with additions to the floor area and decks and a new garage. The project would decrease the floor area of the house by 67 square feet to a total of 4,347 square feet and increase the lot coverage to 3,102 square feet (34.2 %), which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage in the R -2 zone. The additions would extend up to the front property line, which is less than the 15 foot front yard setback required in the R -2 zone, and would have a maximum height of 37 feet, 2 inches, which is taller than the 30 foot maximum building height in the R -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 370 -05. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two - family dwelling to convert the building into a single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess building height on property located at 1762 Vistazo West Street. The existing three -level two - family condominium units would be converted into a single - family dwelling, which would consist of one bedroom, one bathroom, mud room, and music room on lower level; three bedrooms, three bathrooms, laundry room, family room, and a master bedroom suite on the middle level; and formal entry, a second family room, two offices, powder room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, and living room on the upper level. A new garage would be constructed on the street level in the similar location as the existing carport. One new skylight would be installed above the stairway. All three levels would have attached decks with glass railings for additional outdoor living space in rear property. Other proposed improvements on the property would include a BBQ on the upper level deck towards the side of the property, a patio with fire pit, and a 4 foot glass fence on the front property. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 The floor area of the proposed single- family dwelling would be 4,347 square feet, with 387 square feet of garage space, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the property (2,904 square feet). However, the proposed addition would decrease the floor area by 67 square feet, reducing the size of the current two - family dwelling. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,102 square feet (34.2 %), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in R-2 zones (35 %). The existing non - conforming two - family dwelling is situated on the front property line. The proposed single - family dwelling would be within the same footprint as the existing dwelling and also be located on the front property line. As the minimum front yard setback in R -2 zone is 15 feet, the application has requested a Variance for reduced front yard setback. A portion of the existing home currently is 36 feet, 7 inches in height. The proposed additions would increase the maximum height from grade to 37 feet 2 inches. As the maximum building height is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. David Holscher, architect, said that the existing residence is outdated and has a few leaks. He said that the owners bought the lower floor unit in 2008 and last year the Planning Commission approved conversion of the two -unit condominium into a single family dwelling. He explained that the remodel became a combination of updating the building and conversion of the duplex into a functional single - family dwelling. He said that the project would include a two -car garage, a revised entry, and a clear floor plan. He stated that the 7 inch increase in height would be due to the fact that they intend to install foam insulation above the exposed wood ceiling. The public hearing was opened. Helen Lindqvist said that she is a downhill neighbor and felt that the proposed project would be very tall and stand out. She asked whether this house was allowed more floor area because it is in an R -2 zone. She stated that the project is completely surrounded by single family homes with less coverage. She described the project history, including improvements by previous owners. She raised privacy concerns based on issues she had with expansions by other neighbors and asked for additional screening vegetation for this project. She said that the building is over 1,000 square feet beyond what is allowable for the 9,000 square foot lot and she hoped the Board would be supportive if she wanted to add on 1,000 square feet to her house, plus decks around the sides. Chair Chong asked Ms. Lindqvist if there was a specific area she wanted the applicant to add vegetation. Ms. Lindqvist said that it would have to be along their side fence; however, it would probably affect other neighbors so she did not know whether this was feasible. Mr. Holscher explained some of the details of the proposed project and stated that the design would not change the views for the neighbors. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/6/14 Boardmember Tollini asked about the R -2 zoning versus and what is permitted on other zoned lots. Mr. Watrous said the immediate surrounding lots are zoned R -2 and further down it is an R- 1 zoning where Ms. Lindquist lives, which is not considered as an immediate neighbor. He added that the FAR is the same but the lot coverage is 35% versus 30 %. Boardmember Tollini also clarified that the building was constructed before the Town had an FAR requirement. Boardmember Kricensky said that the design looks good and the changes to the floor plan made sense. He said that the garage and entry would enhance the street side he did not believe that the project would impact the downhill neighbors. Boardmember Tollini commented that the lot is strange and he agreed with staff's conclusions on the findings. He thought that the project would be a great improvement for the neighborhood. Boardmember Emberson agreed and said that she can make the findings for the variances. She did not feel that neighbors would be affected by this. She said that the extra height was due to the steep lot and the foam insulation. Boardmember Cousins supported the application and improvement of the house. Chair Chong agreed, and noted that he had the most concern initially with the south elevation, but felt that it was a handsome design. He said that the use of multiple colors would break up the mass and he liked what was done with materials and the windows. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) that the Board determines that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303 and approved the project subject to attached conditions. Vote: 5 -0. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #2 OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 2014 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Emberson requested the following amendments: • Page 2, first full paragraph starting with "Mark Donahue ", second sentence: "He explained that the central issue that tlier-e the house." • Page 7, second full paragraph starting with ` Boardmember Tollini", third sentence: "...have this alignment because it needs to make up so much elevation in order for..." • Page 7, fourth full paragraph beginning with " Boardmember Tollini": Mr. Watrous stated that there is nothing in the ... has issued a stop work order for unauthorized use of that " • Page 8: second paragraph beginning with "Chair Chong ", fourth sentence: "He said that there would be some vegetation there but some might be removed and die and he suggested a condition of approval that headlights should be blocked for a line of sight." • Page 8, third paragraph: ` Boardmember Emberson said she talked with the workers at 485 Paradise and they confirmed that they used that road in the past but now that there are story poles they could not drive through to Antonette Drive." Boardmember Cousins requested the following amendment: TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 43 3/6/14 • Page 8, second sentence; revise the sentence to read, "He liked the roof material and said that there is no information about the screening on the roadway." ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Cousins) to approve the Minutes of February 20, 2014, as amended. Vote: 5 -0. I �.\ 011111:700 _1 SK" The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 10 3/6/14 7. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1041 DIGEST March 12, 2014 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; Commissioners Corcoran and Kulik Absent: Vice Chair Welner Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Plannig Manager Watrous reported that there are agenda items scheduled for March 26c' and April 9` which he briefly described. Director Anderson stated that staff will be releasing the agenda packet tomorrow for the Draft Housing Element which is lengthy and requires additional time for review. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE, SUITE K: SIX -MONTH REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO OPERATE AND EXPAND A GROCERY STORE; FILE 411206; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; Paradise Foods, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 212 -18 Planning Manager Watrous stated that the purpose of this hearing is to conduct the periodic review of the conditional use permit for the Paradise Foods grocery store use at 1 Blackfield Drive. He summarized the staff report and noted that a site visit revealed that products other than produce were displayed outside the store, which was inconsistent with a condition of approval. He recommended that the Planning Commission determine whether the limited visibility of this outdoor merchandise display was consistent with the intent of this condition of approval to limit the visual clutter that often accompanies outdoor display of merchandise. Karen McCloskey, General Manager, Paradise Foods, stated that they do have limited produce and boxed firewood outside the store which they sell, which is neatly to one side and around the comer to the entrance, along with tables and seating for customers. She stated that in other larger TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 12,2014-MINUTES NO. 1041 PAGE 1 stores, they locate the firewood in front of the check stand area, but because the Tiburon store is much smaller there is limited space. Commissioner Kulik asked if all outdoor merchandise is enclosed within the vestibule. Ms. McCloskey said that nothing is stored beyond the designated patio area and the items are exclusively produce and firewood. Ms. McCloskey noted a letter from a resident about parking, and asked for the status of lighting in the rear parking lot. Mr. Watrous said that this should be taken up with the landlord, adding that the Town has approved lighting but it has not yet been installed. The public hearing was opened Miles Berger applauded the store and said that it is beautiful to go and shop there. He noted that parking and traffic had increased and he asked if ever the store receives complaints about the ability to find parking. He also asked how the business was doing in terms of its success. Ms. McCloskey replied that they have heard that around school time it is tricky to get out of the lot and this is a challenge. She said that they work hard to have their employees use the rear parking lot which alleviates any lack of parking. She noted that business is great and the store has been very well received by the community. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the store prepares food on site or does it come from other locations. Ms. McCloskey stated that they prepare food on site but at times when running a promotion, they may need to backfill certain items from other stores. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Corcoran stated that the store is a wonderful addition to the community and has transformed the area. Regarding outdoor display of items, he had anticipated more produce, but did not believe that much is being displayed. He commented that it would be nice if the landlord could provide lighting in the rear parking lot because it can be very dark. Commissioner Kulik stated that the store is a fantastic addition. He realized that there was some contention with hours of delivery, but given the lack of public response, he felt that any concern had been addressed. He agreed with Commissioner Corcoran's comments and voiced his full support. Chair Weller agreed with his fellow Commissioners that the store has been vibrant and a great success. He suggested future review be done on an as needed basis. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kulik) to determine that Paradise Foods is Foods is operating in substantial compliance with the conditional use permit, and reviews of this use permit are should be conducted only on an as- needed basis in the future. Motion carried: 3 -0. Chair Weller moved up Item 3 on the agenda. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- MARCH 12,2014- MINUTES NO. 1041 PAGE 2 NEW BUSINESS 3. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013 Director Anderson stated that Government Code Section 65400(b)(1) requires that an annual report be prepared by the planning agency of each town or city describing programs and progress by the Town in implementing those programs. He stated that the Housing Element program section is formatted to reflect unique state law requirements for Housing Element reporting. The Town has identified progress and commentary added or amended for CY 2013 by underlining it so it is distinguishable. He noted that many programs were completed and there are fewer programs yet to be completed. He said that the role of the Planning Commission is to review the report, make recommendations or comments, forward them to the Council, and the Council will consider them at the next meeting. There were no public comments. Commissioner Kulik said that he saw nothing pressing in the report. He asked and confirmed with Mr. Anderson that there were no particular noteworthy items in the report, and that in some years, programs are recommended for abandonment, but there are none this year. Commissioner Corcoran said that it is nice looking through all of the things such a small town like Tiburon has accomplished and he was impressed with the many projects done throughout the year. He referred to the reference to emergency sirens indicated that the sirens were "capable of being heard from every locale on the Peninsula." He asked whether some neighborhoods in Belvedere were able to hear the sirens. Mr. Anderson stated that while this audibility is intended, it has not been done to that level yet, and he agreed to adjust the wording for that program. Chair Weller stated he was surprised that no progress had been made with Program SEJ yet, given its high priority. Mr. Anderson stated that he believed that the Town's infrastructure is in very good shape, citing the new Town Hall and Police buildings. He stated that the one outstanding issue is the Corporation Yard which has very old buildings that are not of the sort that could be upgraded for seismic safety with good results. He said that the Town is aware of this and is not quite at the point of being able to financially replace them. Chair Weller said that the program indicates that it "shall include conducting a seismic risk assessment of existing Town infrastructure" and he asked if the Town has conducted such an assessment. Mr. Anderson stated that this sort of a study is done on older buildings and the Town has not felt a need to conduct that with the Town Hall and Police buildings, as they were built with modern standards and could withstand earthquake activity. He noted, however, that the Town realizes what an earthquake would do to the Corporation Yard. Chair Weller suggested changing the progress summaries for this program. Commissioner Corcoran suggested indicating an explanation that states the Town is working on funding for this program. Mr. Anderson agreed to provide further clarification. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 12, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1041 PAGE 3 ACTION: It was M/S (Kulik/Corcoran) to direct staff to forward the report to the Town Council for acceptance, with comments. Motion carried: 3 -0. 2. 2344/2346 MAR EAST STREET: TIME EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DUPLEX INTO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS; FILE #11301; Bruce Thompson, Angelina Umanski, Lawrence Bradford, Owners; Assessor's Parcel Number 059 - 195 -11 Planning Manager Watrous stated that he contacted Commissioner Welner who is unable to attend the meeting. He suggested the Commission continue this item to the next meeting, given the lack of a quorum. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Weller) to continue the item to March 26, 2014. Motion carried: 2 -0 -1 ( Kulik abstained). MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of February 12, 2014 Commissioner Kulik requested the following correction: Page 2, last paragraph; starting with "Commissioner Kulik": "He felt that for all intents and purposes this would be a pool house, with the bathroom and decking that surrounds three - quarters of the structure...." ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kulik) to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2014 meeting, as amended. Motion carried: 3 -0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 12, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1041 PAGE 4 DIGEST Fe TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 20, 2014 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #5 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7. 00 PM Present: Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson and Kricensky Absent: Boardmember Tollini Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) None PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 203 TAYLOR ROAD: File No. 714004; Paolo and Teresa Petrone, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a secondary dwelling unit. The project would convert an existing living room and dining room into a new secondary dwelling unit, with the dining room converted into a bedroom and a new kitchen and bathroom added to the side of the building. A new bedroom would be added to the front of the house at the entry level and another bedroom added at the upper level. A new interior stairway would be added to the southwestern side of the house. Three new skylights would be installed above the new secondary dwelling unit and one skylight would be installed above the new upper level bedroom. The project would result in lot coverage of 4,000 square feet (11.2 %) and increase the floor area by 961 square feet to 5,522 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 038 - 422 -05. Approved 4 -0 2. 96 MT. TIBURON COURT: File No. 714006; Farrokh and Susan Hosseinyoon, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling. The proposed three -level building would include a main level with a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, family room, two powder rooms, and a master bedroom suite; an upper level with three bedrooms, and three bathrooms; a lower level with a mud room, guest room, a bathroom, game room, and a garage; and a basement with a bathroom and an extra room. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 5,620 square feet (12.8 %) and a gross floor area of 6,284 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 058 - 261 -19. Continued to April 3, 201 U 3. Regular Meeting of March 6, 2014 Approved as amended 4 -0 ADJOURNMENT At 7.07PM Design Review Board Action Minutes March 20, 2014 Page 1 DIGEST Cj TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 26, 2014 — 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Present: Chair Weller, Vice Chair Welner, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Kulik ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report OLD BUSINESS 2344/2346 MAR EAST STREET: TIME EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DUPLEX INTO TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS; FILE #11301; Bruce Thompson, Angelina Umanski, Lawrence Bradford, Owners; Assessor's Parcel Number 059 - 195 -11 [DW] Approved 3 -0 f%ulik Recused) NEW BUSINESS 2. PRELIMINARY DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT: ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROVIDE COMMISSION COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS [SA] Recommendations Forwarded to Town Council 4 -0 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes March 26, 2014 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN, TIBURON ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY ZONING ON PROPERTIES AT 1599 AND 1600 TIBURON BOULEVARD AND 2 BEACH ROAD, AND RELATED MAPPING AND POLICY AMENDMENTS; Assessor Parcel Nos. 058- 171-97, 059 - 101 -01 and 058- 171 -86; MCA 2014 -01; GPA 2014 -01 [DW] Recommended Approval to Town Council 4-0 MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —Regular Meeting of March 12, 2014 Approved 4 -0 ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 PM x031214 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes March 26, 2014 Page 2 DIGEST TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard April 3, 2014 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 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) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 96 MT. TIBURON COURT: File No. 714006; Farrokh and Susan Hosseinyoon, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling. The proposed three -level building would include a main level with a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, family room, two powder rooms, and a master bedroom suite; an upper level with three bedrooms, and three bathrooms; a lower level with a mud room, guest room, a bathroom, game room, and a garage; and a basement with a bathroom and an extra room. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 5,620 square feet (12.8 %) and a gross floor area of 6,284 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 058- 261 -19. [KO] CONTINUED TO MAY 1, 2014 2. 26 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 21403; Suzanna and Nick Bell, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The proposed one -story home would include an entry foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, den/library, mud/laundry room, powder room, two bathrooms, three bedrooms, office, master bedroom suite and a single car garage. The project would increase the floor area to 2,860 square feet and increased the lot coverage to 3,188 square feet (37.0 %) of the site, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage allowed in the R -1 zone. The house would extend to within 15 feet, 10 inches of the rear property line, which is less than the required 24 foot, 3 inch rear yard setback. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 271 -13. [KO] Design Review Board April 3, 2014 Page 1 /D • 3. 1860 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21406; Amalfi West LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The first floor would be expanded to include a new family room, laundry room and powder room, and the second floor would include expansions to the existing kitchen, entry and master bedroom suite and would connect to the existing detached two -car garage. The project would increase the floor area by 1,386 square feet to a total of 4,182 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 3,571 square feet (15.9 %) of the site, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 042 -11. [DW] MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of March 20, 2014 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board April 3; 2014 Page 2