1501 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Stein, Commissioners Commissioner Berger, Smith and Snow

Commissioners Absent: None

Vacancies: One

Staff Present: Senior Planner Watrous and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS     There were none.

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted the December 26, 2001 meeting has been cancelled. In response to questions, he stated locations are being sought for the MERA antenna. The subcommittee of the Town Council is meeting on occasion to formulate strategy on how to proceed.

Minutes of November 8, 2001

Page 7, fifth paragraph, should be "…maximum height of ridges relative to final grade."

Page 6, second paragraph, "20 acres" should be "10 acres."

E.    PUBLIC HEARING

2. 1, 5 & 9 STEVENS COURT; AMENDMENT TO KUHNS PRECISE PLAN (PD #31) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA AND AMEND A BUILDING ENVELOPE; Ben Barnes, et al, owners; Ted Wray, Applicant. Assessor Parcel No. 58-111-25, 25 and 27

Commissioner Smith recused himself from this item.

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the Staff report.

Ted Wray, contractor, noted page 5 of the Staff report should state that the proposed deck would extend eleven feet to the rear of the proposed garage, rather than to the rear of the "proposed house," as stated in the report. In response to questions, he stated the erected story poles are for the garage. The understory of the house has been recently developed, but no changes have been made to the outside of the house.

Bruce Pendergraf, 100 Saunders Avenue, San Anselmo, representing Terry Harrison, 2 Rolling Hills Road, requested that the applicant be required to have a licensed surveyor establish the building envelope boundary prior to construction. Ms. Harrison is concerned regarding potential impacts from noise, privacy and night lighting from the project, as many of her windows face the location of the proposed deck. The compatibility of the proposed construction with the scale of other buildings in the neighborhood area is a concern. He believes the floor area ratio was not meant to be applied blindly across the town; rather, each project is to be examined to maintain the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Wray stated he did not understand why the previous proposals to amend the Kuhns Precise Plan were not approved. When the landscaping matures, he felt that these homes will fit into the neighborhood. The applicant believes that the deck and garage will make the home more livable.

Mr. Pendergraf stated that the deck creates a new activity space that cannot be screened. He felt that screening vegetation will not grow well under the canopy of the oak trees on the site. The mass of the garage and deck would push noise and activity 20 feet closer to Ms. Harrison’s house.

Chair Stein asked if Staff believes the boundaries as shown on the submitted plans are accurate. Senior Planner Watrous responded that the drawings are somewhat vague, but it has been previously determined that the existing building is within the building envelope. In cases when a neighbor has a legitimate concern that a new building will come close to a property line or building envelope, a survey is commonly required as a condition of Design Review approval, which will occur prior to construction.

Commissioner Berger noted that when this subdivision was developed, the building envelopes were used to control the size of houses, as the Town did not have FAR standards at that time. The proposed garage for 1 Stevens Court would be within the existing envelope. It is not an activity space. If the side window were eliminated, he felt that it becomes a benign addition. There are effective screening trees and other landscaping on the site. Within the building envelope, he would allow the additional floor area; however, he did not want this amendment to imply an approval of additional building height. Regarding the deck, it appears that the stairs can be built tighter to the house, without violating the building envelope. He would not encourage activity area of the deck as proposed, and would not approve the expansion of the building envelope.

Commissioner Snow concurred. Regarding Ms. Harrison’s concern, the design review process will address the bulk and mass issues. Even one window on the garage would increase noise toward the neighboring house. The increased activity area of the deck is not acceptable.

Chair Stein stated that the proposed deck is problematic, and the garage should not be approved. He reviewed minutes of previous Town meetings regarding this subdivision back to 1980, and said that the design of the homes was a stipulation when initially approved; the homes in this subdivision are maxed out. This is a very tight development. Cypress Hollow is a similar situation, and the Council reversed a Planning Commission decision to allow additional building there. He said that a great deal of work was done by previous Planning Commissions to establish the floor areas for this subdivision. He stated that building in Tiburon is not about establishing a beachhead and growing from there. As land values increase in Tiburon, residents will want to expand their houses. These homes have been built recently and have already been allowed expansions. He thought that it was time to hold the line. The applicant does not live on the site and the neighbor would be more affected than the owner. He sees no compelling reason to allow any change.

Commissioner Berger stated that he respected Chair Stein’s concept of holding the line, but he felt that the Town should be flexible to allow change to adapt to owners’ needs. In the initial approval process for this precise plan, the line that the Town wanted held involved the building heights and building envelopes. Within the envelope, he thought that flexibility should be allowed. A garage would take a car off the street.

Chair Stein added, while owners change their change over time, these houses were only recently completed. Little time has passed for the situations of these homes to have changed. He thought that a three-car garage might encourage larger families who would bring in more cars and guests.

Commissioner Snow stated he appreciates Chair Stein’s concerns about holding the line. However, even though the project was completed only five years ago, people do return for changes. The Town must look at each individual application, and in this case, the proposed floor area change makes reasonable sense.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated that the Commission can recommend approval of the text amendment to the Precise Plan and not the building envelope change.

M/S, Berger/Snow, to recommend approval to the Town Council of the floor area increased as requested; that this does not imply an approval of additional building height; that the proposed garage window facing the property at 2 Rolling Hills Road not be allowed on the garage; and denying the request to amend the building envelope for 1 Stevens Court.

Chair Stein added the space is tight between the house at 1 Stevens Court and Ms. Harrison’s home, and the construction of the garage would affect the sense of openness between the two houses. He felt that large houses should not get larger for no compelling reason.

Commissioner Berger stated that the garage would be a blank wall facing the green space. He thought that it would not be a bothersome impact. Regarding the building envelope line, an owner should be allowed to use his property as he sees fit if the owner can prove this is not a meaningful degradation or inconsistent with the approved precise plan. The two buildings were many times further apart than the Town minimum.

Chair Stein added that the applicant is asking that former decisions by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission be changed. He felt that this would establish a precedent. He views a precise plan as a standard should not be amended unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This development was debated many times by Town bodies, with the resultant current final decision. He also noted that the garage could become a living area.

Commissioner Snow responded that the building envelope is not being changed by the Commission. He felt that the bulk and mass are not significant in this instance.

The motion passed 2-1-1, Stein dissented and Smith recused.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

_________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

___________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY