Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2015-02-18 (2)To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting February 18, 2015 Agenda Item: Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive; File #714090: Appeal of Design Review Board's Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of Additions to an Existing Two -Family Dwelling; Julia Shumelda, Owner; TracX and Peter Dempsey, Appellants; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-191-02 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: Property Owner: Appellant: File Number: Lot Size: Zoning: General Plan: Flood Zone: SUMMARY 2340 Paradise Drive 059-191-02 Julia Shumelda Tracy and Peter Dempsey 714090 7,168 square feet R-2 (Two -Family Residential) H (High Density Residential) X (Outside 500 -year storm event) On November 6, 2014, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the expansion of an existing deck in the rear yard and for the modification of five windows of an existing two-family dwelling located at 2340 Paradise Drive. The owners of the property at 2350 Paradise Drive, Tracy and Peter Dempsey (hereafter referred to as "appellants"), have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision. The appeal is attached as Exhibit 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Design Review Board has conditionally approved a deck expansion in the rear yard and five modified windows for an existing two-family dwelling. The applicant originally proposed to expand the deck by 144 square feet (24 feet wide and 6 feet deep) with a new glass railing, and to modify several windows on all sides of the existing home. The deck expansion would have a height of 10 feet (10'), which would be the same height above grade, as the existing deck (see Exhibit 22). TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 Town COUL161 Meeting Fcbrum} 13, 2015 REVIEW BY STAFF This application was first submitted for staff -level design review. During the staff review of this application, the neighboring property owners at 2350 Paradise Drive and 2336 Paradise Drive raised objections to the design of the proposed additions. The appellants raised concerns that the proposed deck expansion would block views from their rear living space and that two proposed east side window expansions would create a privacy impact on their home. The owner of 2336 Paradise Drive raised concerns that the proposed deck expansion would create a privacy impact on their deck. Community Development Department policy requires that staff -level applications be referred to the Design Review Board when objections are received from two or more neighboring property owners. As a result, this application was referred to the Design Review Board for a decision. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board reviewed the application at the November 6, 2014 meeting (see staff report and minutes attached as Exhibits 4 and 5). At the meeting, the applicant stated that the two east side windows would face an existing side yard hedge and would face towards the backyard and not into the home of the adjacent neighbor. A representative of the appellants expressed their opposition to both the east side windows and the deck expansion, stating that these improvements would impact the neighbor's views from a seated position in their living space and create a privacy impact. The representative also stated that landscaping should not be the solution for screening to prevent privacy impacts. The Design Review Board concluded that the proposed deck expansion could potentially affect some views for the appellants. The Board determined that the proposed east side windows would not result in privacy impacts and the windows would provide additional lighting for the applicants' home. The Board determined that cutting back on the proposed deck would adequately reduce any view blockage impacts. The Board voted 4-0 to approve the project with the condition of approval that the southeastern corner of the extension of the deck be cut back at a 45 degree angle from the point of the existing deck. On November 17, 2014, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1: The proposed deck expansion would impact views from primary living spaces of the appellant. Staff Response: The majority of the Design Review Boardmembers present at the meeting visited the appellants' property and evaluated the potential view blockage impacts of the proposed deck expansion. Boardmember Tollini said that "the extension would not block a significant view but it would crowd into the view of the land mass which is part of the Golden Gate Bridge view." Chair Cousins stated that he "believed that the view obstruction would be minor based on the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 Torn Council Meeting Februaty 18, 2015 interpretation (of the Hillside Design Guidelines)." The Board concluded that cutting back the corner of the proposed deck expansion at a 45 degree angle would substantially lessen any potential view blockage for the appellants. Ground 42: The proposed windows on the east side would create privacy and lighting impacts on the appellants. Staff Response: The two east side windows would replace two existing windows in the similar location. One window would be fixed and the other would be operable. Boardmember Chong stated that "only a very small sliver of window would be seen in the appellants' residence." Chair Cousins noted that the "proposal would put a breakfast bar in the location of the two proposed windows and would therefore make it less likely for people to be standing in that location looking out the windows." The Board concluded that the new windows would provide additional light for the applicant's home, and would not materially impact the privacy of the appellants. Ground #3: The existing landscaping between the two properties is temporary. Staff Response: Although landscaping is not permanent in nature, it currently does provide a buffer between the homes in close proximity. In addition, as mentioned above in Ground #2, the Board did not view the windows as a privacy issue and did not make any changes to these improvements during the meeting because it was determined that the windows would be in the similar location as the existing windows and would not create additional impacts on the appellants. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project. The addition conditionally approved by the Board would adequately address potential view blockage concerns. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 2), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to deny the appeal. 3) Direct Staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. 1 W4111,3It-K 1. Notice of appeal 2. Appeal procedures TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Town Council Meeting February 13, 2015 3. Application form and supplemental materials 4. Design Review Board staff report dated November 6, 2014 5. Minutes of the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting 6. Email dated September 2, 2014 from Peter & Tracy Dempsey 7. Letter dated September 4, 2014 from Sue Zimmerman & Wally Quinn 8. Email dated September 16, 2014 from Peter & Tracy Dempsey 9. Email dated September 23, 2014 from Jeanne Romano & Tony Schofield 10. Email dated September 23, 2014 from Michael Moradzadeh & Noelee Leca 11. Letter dated September 23, 2014 from James & Patricia Lyness 12. Email dated September 25, 2014 from Elizabeth Bartels 13. Email dated September 26, 2014 from Barry & Fran Wilson 14. Email dated September 26, 2014 from Carly Bartlett 15. Email dated September 27, 2014 from Julie Boyd 16. Email dated September 28, 2014 from Marissa Miller 17. Email dated September 28, 2014 from Kay Freeman 18. Email dated October 7, 2014 from Randy Stevens 19. Email dated October 28, 2014 from Julia Shumelda 20. Letter dated November 3, 2014 from Julia Shumelda 21. Letter dated November 4, 2014 from Law Offices of John Sharp 22. Submitted plans Prepared By: Kyra O'Malley, Assistant Planner TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages ifnecessary) NOV 1 ZU14 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 7Yburon Boulevard Muron, C4 94920 Phone 415.435-7373 ww vxi.tlburon.ca. us Tracy and Peter Dempsey, c/o Law Offices of John E. Sharp Mailing Address: 24 Professional Center Parkway, Ste 100 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone: 415-479-1645 (Work) (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): johnPiohnsharplaw.com ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: Tiburon Design Review Board Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: November 6, 2014 Name of Applicant: Julia Shumelda Type of Application or Decision: File # 714090, Site Plan and Architectural Review GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) See Attachment. STAFF USE ONLYBELOW THIS ME t Last Day to File Appeal: 11 11� ` 1 o1`f Date Appeal Filed: 11 ue1 Fee Paid:) Receipt No -11 Date of Appeal Heating: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non -applicant S.UdministrationTor=Wolice ofAppeolform revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised-RMBIT NO. I I Or Attachment to Notice of A eal• File # 714090 Appellants Tracy and Peter Dempsey base this appeal on the fact that approval, granted on November 6, 2014, lacks proper findings or evidence to support such findings, as required by, without limitation, Tiburon Municipal Code 16 — 52.020 H, and Goal 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines. Said findings, and supporting evidence are required, according to California law, embodied in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 et seq. and related case law. Failure to. meet the above -referenced standards constitutes abuse of discretion. The proposed construction at 2340 Paradise Dr. would extend the applicant's deck into views from Appellants' primary living areas. Appellants' home is designed to specifically preserve said views, including the view toward and of the hillsides and water lines in the direction of the city of Sausalito, the Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. Furthermore, replacement of existing windows, with a 4' by 8' window, on the side of the applicants' property immediately adjacent to Appellants' living room windows will create violations of Appellants' privacy and will cause intrusion into Appellants' property in the form of impacts from electric lighting and the ability of applicants to look into Appellants' living areas. Notably, applicants rely upon plantings between the offending proposed window and Appellants' property as a form of mitigation of the impacts associated with privacy and light; however, the foliage relied upon by applicants is temporary, at best and does not constitute any meaningful design remedy for Appellants' concerns. The above -referenced impacts are specifically to be avoided, as set forth in Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16 — 52.020H. 2. Appellants' reserve the right to submit such further written and verbal evidence, argument and testimony as may be appropriate to support this appeal up to and including at the time of the hearing on the appeal. EXHIBIT NO, I a,CFC2, RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing afler the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-1010 03117/1010 -EXHIBIT NO. Ior5 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03117120/0 EXHIBIT NI O. Z d 61FI� Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. S. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 3 EXHIBIT NO. -VE 3 bF '/ SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councihnembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three -hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed constriction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) dates prior to the date of the apaeal hearine before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 4 .EXHIBI i Nti 0. �. 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff - level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz CHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-1010 0311712010 EXHIBIT N O. 02 5 ov-5 TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICA o Conditional Use Permit o Precise Development Plan o Secondary Dwelling Unit o Zoning Text Amendment o Rezoning or Prezoning o General Plan Amendment o Temporary Use Permit TYPE OF APPLICATION o Design Review (DRB) 'q4esign Review (Staff Level) /oVariance(s) # o Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Permit L - AUG L 0 2014 PLAN!NIHMG Drys, Ott'l o Tentative Subdivision Map o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment o Condominium Use Permit o Seasonal Rental Unit Permit o Other. APPLICANT REOUIItED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 21-5 _?AA -DICE ] VE PROPERTY SIZE: 1 09 PARCEL NUMBER: 059- 191- b2 ZONING: 9-Z PROPERTY OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS: APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): '54UE VAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER r ^,' F 1� MAILING ADDRESS: 2 34 1?-A-pA DI S -E PHONE/FAX NUMBER: Fd u Please indicate with an asterisk r,) persons to whom Town correspondence should he sent. OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): br- t otS9 -SO I, 02- L the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein dem-,ibed, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. n Date: Signature:* pC0 �l y The property involving this permit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCB,:Rs), which may restrict the property's use and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon. Consequently, development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact the appropriate homeowners association and adjacent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding with construction. Following this procedure will minimize the potential for disagreement among neighbors and possible litigation. Signature:* Date: (FT' *If other than owner, utast have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes offding this application NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65945, applicants may request to receive notice from the Town of Tiburon of any general (non -parcel -specific), proposals to adopt or amend the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plans, or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits. If you wish to receive such notice, then you may make a written request to the Director of Community Development to be included on a mailing list for such purposes, and must specify which types of proposals you wish to receive notice upon. The written request must also specify the length of time you wish to receive such notices .(s), and you must provide to the Town a supply of stamped, self-addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the Town for the duration of the time period requested for receiving such notices. The notice will also provide the status of the proposal and the date of any public hearings thereon which have been set The Town will determine whether a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application, and send the notice on that basis. Such notice shall be updated at least every six weeks unless there is no change to the contents of the notice that would reasonably affect your application. Requests should be mailed to: _ Town of Tiburon r� Community Development Department Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-7390 (Tel) (415) 435-243Wax) www.tnwnoftibu ron.ore ,. ,., r. xiroTTTi Q T nW TTXTC T .TNF. v AUG CU ZUIq ,ii Ir MANNING plVlglON 059--151- 02 - MINOR ALTERATION SUPPLEMENT ,p) L Please fill in the information requested below: AOG 20 2U14 .n:.. 1. Briefly describe the proposed project (attach separate sheet as needed): 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L))* 3. Square footage of Landscape Area: 4. Proposed use of siteexample: sin le family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing�l��l�r►A� Proposed—�1i FGII¢ �- 5. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas. h In Zoning:2 R;ALSER �� Yards T (Setbacks from property line) (Section 16- 100.020(Y))" ft ft. ft. i \i % ft• (�I r' I� ft• Front Rear 9 ft. ft. ft. 3 ft. ft. Right Side ft. ft, ft. 0 ft. ft. Left Side ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height ft. ft. ft. 'J ft. (Section 16-30.050)* ft. Lot Coverage 14� z �iZ1O (Section 16-30.120(B))* ��, I�tils ft. sq.ft I sq.ft. Z sq.ft. E sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area �� , �% ` % % �' Gross Floor Area N Its, sq.ft. 2/32-6 sq.ft (Section 16- sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. 100.020(F))* *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, 0 Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) SAPlanning\Forms\Current Forms\Design Review Board Application for Minor Alteration 9-2012.doc M'X FiIKI�, inn SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORMFOR MINOR ALTERATION TOHJv OFT/HURON REV. 9-2012 PAGES 3 D} J UL to S WME Dl 2340 TA -P -A -DM b 1 oe 7BU P-00 CA X492 0 059. 01.02. 'T�R,Vv sr -b ` ZoSEcr : ND -OU RACE COD 2 un�C- w��t c -toss 2 �u�G- C soufiA EVA -r ) � © '��L.ftCr,- T -EAP, l o' SLA-NO6- 'DMP, WfPt SL,IDwc- -f-,XD(op-s C SDtft ele\JA- oo) Q '�Z PLACG CNE 3`.5 x 35Y� MW N W InYboL4) LO F -t lf'Xg.' �IYz-D - -00) 12.'X5 AW Nor) C- w IN DOk.Js C 50O- k 1✓l-�� o ^�� -�� YuAcE 3 x 2' w"�s� Ai -OL W . q � -,oN �G EXHIBIT NO. a TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Members of the Design Review Board Assistant Planner O'Malley Design Review Board Meeting November 6, 2014 Agenda Item: 3 2340 Paradise Drive; File No. 714090; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single -Family Dwelling ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: 2340 PARADISE DRIVE 059-191-02 714090 OWNER: JULIA SHUMELDA APPLICANT: SAME ARCHITECT: ROGER BARTELS LOT SIZE: 7,168 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: AUGUST 27, 2014 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section 15303. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review approval for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2340 Paradise Drive. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling with an existing 24' x 7 1/2' wooden deck with wood railing on the rear of the house. The proposal includes expanding the existing deck to the rear by 144 square feet (24' x 6') with a new glass railing and modifying several windows on all sides of the existing home. The proposed deck would have a height of ten feet (10'), which would be at the same height as the existing deck. XHIBl T iN O. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF for--� Design Review Board Meeting November 6.2014 The proposal would result in no change to the existing floor area of 2,540 square feet. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,772 square feet (26.6%), which is below the maximum 35% permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone. This application was first submitted for staff -level design review. During the review of this application, the neighboring property owners at 2350 Paradise Drive and 2336 Paradise Drive raised objections to the design of the proposed additions. As a result, this application has been referred to the Design Review Board. ANALYSIS Design Issues The subject property is located on Paradise Drive with views of the bay, Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, Angel Island, and Sausalito. The proposed deck expansion would be oriented in a similar location as the existing deck towards Linda Vista Avenue and the views. Five existing windows and one door on different sides of the home would be replaced with different sized windows. The length of the existing sliding glass door would be doubled, but would remain in the same location as the existing; these changes would not appear to create additional impacts on the adjacent neighbors. In addition, the majority of proposed windows would be screened by existing landscaping especially towards the adjacent homes on the east and west side of the subject property. The property owner at 2350 Paradise Drive has raised concerns that the proposed deck expansion would create an impact on views from their rear living space toward Sausalito, the bay, and the Golden Gate Bridge. In addition, the neighbor contends that two of the proposed windows on the east side of the subject dwelling would create a privacy impact on the adjacent neighbor in their living room because of the close proximity between the homes. The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines should be used in evaluating the potential view and privacy impacts from this neighboring home: Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling (e.g. living room, dining room, family room, great room, kitchen, and decks associated with these rooms) than for less actively used areas of a dwelling (e.g. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den)." The proposed deck expansion would appear to impact partial views from the living room and dining room of the home at 2350 Paradise Drive. EXHIBIT X0. o�.°f S of TIBLJRON Pnae 2 of 7 Design Review Board Meeting November 6.2014 -NO hfES_ • PROnO4Eo hTYlUG?UOE •PQopoh0n 6LOLKh LIV.He-,, ROOM SW - &OL.K6 PA-rNOOM %IaW ,O GI12F.,TVAIOM-T 04 I AVAP,.�afv •LITTLE IMPAe, OH .'G1i wLrey Goal 3, Principle 7 (C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "blockage of center of view more damaging than blockage of side of view." A portion of the deck expansion would be seen from the side view of the adjacent home at 2350 Paradise Drive, but would not appear to block the center of the views. No -- fEh •nQopapEn � ;n�cc:Ize nl2onosEn �-rtueTUar .... 6-12 Lv�-"^u1� OP VFW W-o�K.�.6117�-.C,tp W'A�Y-J Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "blockage of important object in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks." The proposed deck expansion would not intrude into the views of "well-known landmarks", but would only block the view of other homes along the hillside in Tiburon. t -in `(E1 TOVVN Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the small slot view." The majority of the homes in this neighborhood have panoramic views from their homes, especially the homes at 2350 and 2340 Paradise Drive. The proposed deck expansion would potentially impact a minor 3of7 3 of C5 Dcsign Rcvicw Board \dccting November 6, 2014 portion of the view from the adjacent home at 2350 Paradise Drive; however, the majority of the panoramic view would remain. -hi0 - 60'..IPxy '✓14'1,; :f�7h.^�..� ��� ���TFIBN 1174 �'T WA4!7. ,O A:�AEI , HVA The property owner at 2336 Paradise Drive has raised concerns that the proposed deck expansion would create a privacy impact on their home. The existing deck is blocked by an architectural detail on the adjacent dwelling. The proposed deck expansion would be seen from the deck and home of the adjacent neighbor with no screening. However, the proposed deck expansion would appear to be a similar length as the neighbor's deck of approximately 14 feet. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the residence at 2336 and 2350 Paradise Drive to evaluate potential privacy issues, and visit the residence at 2350 Paradise Drive to determine if the proposed deck expansion would create any visual impacts on the adjacent home. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone. Public Comment As of the date of this report, there have been fourteen (14) letters regarding this application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) Guiding Principles, and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board wishes to approve the application, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approved be applied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Application and Supplemental Materials 3. Email dated September 2, 2014 from Peter & Tracy Dempsey 4. Letter dated September 4, 2014 from Sue Zimmerman & Wally Quinn 5. Email dated September 16, 2014 from Peter & Tracy Dempsey 6. Email dated September 23, 2014 from Jeanne Romano & Tony Schofield 7. Email dated September 23, 2014 from Michael Moradzadeh & Noelee Leca OF Design Rei iew Board Meeting November 6.2014 8. Letter dated September 23, 2014 from James & Patricia Lyness 9. Email dated September 25, 2014 from Elizabeth Bartels 10. Email dated September 26, 2014 from Barry & Fran Wilson 11. Email dated September 26, 2014 from Carly Bartlett 12. Email dated September 27, 2014 from Julie Boyd 13. Email dated September 28, 2014 from Marissa Miller 14. Email dated September 28, 2014 from Kay Freeman 15. Email dated October 7, 2014 from Randy Stevens 16. Email dated October 28, 2014 from Julia Shumelda 17. Submitted Plans L1it111i1 T i� G.� 5►F�J TOWN OF TiBt1RON Page 5 of 7 lighting elements of the project during the parcel map/subdivision improvement drawing phase of the project. Jim Catlin, architect representing the applicant, said that he read the staff report and recommendations and was available to answer any questions. There were no public comments. Boardmember Kricensky stated that the landscaping plan seemed reasonable and looked good. He noted one concern from a neighbor about the maintenance and upkeep of the landscaping, but he said that it is normally assumed that the landscape will be maintained. Planning Manager Watrous said that most of the landscaping will be in common areas and the Precise Development Plan requires that the HOA for the three homes is responsible for the maintenance. Vice -Chair Tollini said that the plan struck a nice balance of maintaining the open space feel while also adding screening. He said that the lighting was tasteful and he saw no need for additional lights. He liked the selection of native trees. Boardmember Chong agreed with Boardmember Kricensky's and Chair Tollini's comments that the project was straightforward. Chair Cousins asked why the street light was required. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the street light was required by the Public Works Department as part of the Precise Development Plan. Chair Cousins said that the plan included a good choice of plants. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) to approve the request for the Ling Subdivision Project landscape and lighting plan, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 3. 2340 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 714090; Julia Shumelda, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The project would involve the expansion of an existing deck to the rear of the house and adding windows. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-191-02. The applicant is requesting design review approval for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2340 Paradise Drive. The proposal includes expanding the existing deck to the rear by 144 square feet (24' x 6') with a new glass railing and modifying several windows on all sides of the existing home. The proposed deck would have a height of ten feet (10'), which would be at the same height as the existing deck. The proposal would result in no change to the existing floor area of 2,540 square feet. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,772 square feet (26.6%), which is below the maximum 35% permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone. This application was first submitted for staff -level design review. During the review of this application, the neighboring property owners at 2350 Paradise Drive and 2336 Paradise Drive raised objections to the design of the proposed additions. As a result, this application has been referred to the Design Review Board. EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 11/6/14 The public hearing was opened. Julia Shumelda, owner, said that she has lived in the home for 9 years and had a lot of time to think about the changes they would make and design updates because the home is 100 years old. She said that they designed each component to be respectful of neighbors and to stay within the guidelines of the DRB. She said that she reached out to 13 of her neighbors and received 9 letters of support and the Dempseys at 2350 Paradise Drive were the only neighbors she did not meet with. She said that she had hoped to sort out issues with neighbors directly, but the Dempseys hired a lawyer she has also retained a lawyer to speak tonight. Ms. Shumelda stated that most of the proposed work was interior and structural and they did not request any variances. She said that their intention was to extend the current rear deck by 6 feet and replace the wood railing with a glass railing. She stated that they would like to replace the existing patio door in the dining room with a slightly larger patio door and add a second patio door in the kitchen. She said that there was a lot of structural work required in the attic to restore their storage space and make it code compliant and they intend to replace the south -facing attic window with a triangular gable window in order to provide ventilation and passive cooling for the whole house. On the east elevation on the main floor in the kitchen, she. said that they plan -to remove the current bank of east -facing windows and replace them with two windows: one 4' x 8' fixed window and one 3' x 5' operable window. She said that neither the current nor proposed windows are oriented toward the Dempsey residence and the windows face a hedge, part of their back yard, and their parking path. Ms. Shumelda expressed her appreciation for the number of people who have supported her project and said that she was aware that some have taken issue with some of the design components. Brad Nelson, Ms. Shumelda's fianc6, thanked the neighbors for writing letters in support of their project. He responded to the three neighbors and one attorney who raised specific issues about the project. In response to the Dempsey's concerns about the deck, he presented photos showing the proposed deck extension as viewed from the Dempsey's home. He said that the photos demonstrated that the story poles for the 6 foot deck extension with glass railings would not intrude into the Dempsey's primary views, secondary views, or obscure landmarks in any way. He said that the story poles are so far in the periphery of the Dempseys' view that he was surprised this has been raised as an issue. Mr. Nelson stated that the Dempseys' attorney asserted that the photos taken by staff were insufficient and he invited the DRB to visit and view the story poles from a seated position on the second floor of the Dempsey home. Mr. Nelson stated that they used the photos taken by staff as a neutral third party at what they believed to be appropriate positions. Mr. Nelson stated that their proposal would add a minor amount of visible window area for the Dempseys and they believe the concerns about light and privacy were unfounded. He presented another photo taken by staff which illustrates the current window and what the expanded window would entail. He said that very little of the additional window area would be visible from the Dempsey property. He stated that the current kitchen windows emanate the same amount of light that would come from the new windows because they are oriented toward the hedge in their yard and not toward the Dempseys' living space. He said that the expanded windows would not be used to egress the home as neither the current nor proposed deck wrap around to the side of the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 EXHIBIT NO. 11/6/14 6 house where these windows are located. He felt that it was unreasonable for them to be limited by the Dempsey's future plans for their own deck. He stated that the day after the staff report was submitted, the Dempseys significantly trimmed a property line hedge and this was the first time in the 6 years they have trimmed the hedge. He believed that trimming was intended to accentuate a supposedly protected view, but he believed that all of the findings for the approval of this project can still easily be made. He felt that it was in the best interest of both themselves and the Dempseys to maintain the hedges, and a recent conversation about maintenance between the owners has taken place. Mr. Nelson also responded to the concerns of the Stevens, who are directly west of the property. He said that that neighbor has a 540 square feet deck and has taken issue with the proposed 360 square foot deck extending 15 feet from the home. He stated that the deck extension would only be visible from a small portion of the neighbors' deck when turning 90 degrees and away from the existing views. He felt that this was not the type of scenario that the Hillside Design Guidelines seek to protect. Mr. Nelson responded to the uphill neighbors and clarified that their objection was a result of a misunderstanding of the plans. He said that the attic has been and will be used, only for storage ....... and would not be habitable space. John Sharp, attorney representing Peter and Tracy Dempsey, said that he wanted to focus on objective methods such as the design ordinance and hillside guidelines and evidence required to support findings. He said that the views that have been discussed are important views to the..... Dempseys. He said that he was aware of the photographs taken by staff and staff's opinions ' regarding the lack of impact on these views. He said that the Hillside Design Guidelines illustrations did not specifically fit the Demspeys' concerns and do not represent the impediment to that view that would occur if this project is approved, as the Dempseys' living areas were designed to enjoy views from a seated position. Mr. Sharp said that the proposed windows would look directly onto the Dempsey's living room and have an enormous impact on their quality of life, which was intended to be protected by the Tiburon Municipal Code and Hillside Guidelines. He addressed the hedge trimming and said that the hedges have been pruned on a schedule of 5 years and there was no attempt to manipulate landscaping. He believed that it was not good planning or design to consider landscaping as a solution to the magnitude of the impact of these windows. He invited the Board to consider the purpose of a 4' x 8' window looking in the direction of the Dempsey's living room. He said that they believe the impact of the windows and the deck extension fail to allow the findings to be made that are necessary to approve the project and requested the application be denied. Richard Woodhouse stated that this house is in his view from above and he supported the project as presented. Riley Hurd, attorney for the applicant, said that he also strongly believes in findings and evidence and that evidence exists tonight in the form of photographic evidence, the staff report, plans, and site visits. He noted Mr. Sharp's reference to goal 3, principal 7 of the Hillside Design Guidelines, which states that "partial view blockage should be avoided wherever possible." Mr. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 EXHIBIT 4N0. 5 11/6/14 3 of. 5 Hurd suggested that the photos denote that it is not a view and therefore it cannot be blocked. He stated that the windows would not look at the Dempsey's living room and he pointed to a photo showing how much can actually be seen of the windows from the living room. He said that the size of the window does not indicate that it will be used as a door and it would be perfectly acceptable to make a condition of approval that the window not be used as a door. He stated that the hedge was only ever pruned by his clients since they have lived there and was done on a schedule. He said that the trimming seemed to have added to the argument of the seating versus standing views from the house. He believed that if the hedge was even 2 feet lower than the photos it would not make a difference and the findings could be made to approve the project. He asked that the Board to approve the project. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Chong stated that he visited the site and stood in the kitchen and the new window would be in relatively the same location as the existing window but would come out a little bit fiuther. He said that only a very small sliver of window could be seen in the Dempsey's residence. He did not think that this would be a place people will stand and view that sliver and he was therefore not bothered by the window. He said that he also did not see the view impact . concerns. He understood that this would be a slightly larger deck but the photograph is representative of what the Dempseys would see. He said that the extension would have the potential to block a little more roofline and some of the homes that sit at the bottom of the bill. He said that he was unable to get into the Dempseys' home to view the impact and he was curious to see if any of the other Boardmembers were able to view the impact from that. home. Boardmember Kricensky said that he was able to enter 2350 Paradise Drive to see the view impact. He said he believed that the Dempseys consider the landforms in the view to be important and when sitting inside the residence patio umbrellas on the new deck could block views of those landforms. He said that looking at the entire view corridor and the Hillside Design. Guidelines, the deck extension would take out a small portion of the view in the corner and would not be much of an infringement. He questioned the need for the proposed large -windows but stated that he agreed with staff regarding the view blockage. Vice -Chair Tollini stated that he visited the applicant's property as well as the adjacent neighbors' properties. He felt that the impact to 2336 Paradise Drive was a slight privacy impact but was far away and it would be unlikely for neighbors to be able to see each other on the decks at the same time. He said that there was no meaningful and effective way of maintaining the same privacy as when the houses were unimproved bungalows that are close together and people want to build larger decks. He appreciated the concerns of 2336 Paradise Drive but he did not think that this would have a meaningful privacy impact. He said that the impact on 2350 Paradise Drive was greater. He agreed with what was said regarding the Hillside Design Guidelines, but given how close the houses are, the extension would not block a significant view but it would crowd into the view of the land mass which is part of the Golden Gate Bridge view. He said that the impact would be created but could be mitigated by either bringing the deck in a little or angling the corner. He suggested that a 45 degree angle be taken out of the extension so it would have a lot less impact on the neighbors. He did not think that the angle would meaningfully diminish the quality of the improvement from the applicant's standpoint. He did not understand TIBURON D.R.B. NUNUTES #16 EXMBlT N ©• 5 11,6,14 1 05 the reason for the full height window in that location because all that was visible was rooftops and hedge. He said that the window would not impact neighbors much and would provide light, but he would be in favor of shrinking the glazing on the comer. Boardmember Kricensky said the dimensions of the attic show that it could only be used for storage. Chair Cousins believed that staff fully looked at the views in terms of a strict interpretation of the Hillside Design Guidelines and believed that the view obstruction would be minor based on that interpretation. He liked the suggested of cutting the corner of the deck at a 45 degree angle and suggested the applicant consider that. He said that he visited the Dempseys' home and sat in a chair and he felt that the photographs were relevant. He thought that the 45 degree angle on the deck would help limit any umbrellas that could be placed on that portion of the deck. He said that the proposed windows would not affect privacy because the existing windows run the full length of that side. He noted that the proposal would put a breakfast bar in that location and would therefore make it less likely for people to be standing in that location looking out the windows. He agreed that there would be more light coming out of the window, but noted its length would be reduced. He.said that he liked the window architecturally and did not believe that it should be cut back. Boardmember Chong agreed that angling the comer of the deck would substantially lessen the potential for view blockage. Chair Cousins said that the light from the new window would be more of an issue than the actual privacy impact. Boardmember Tollini said that it would be more of an impact on the feeling of privacy rather than an actual privacy impact. Boardmember Chong asked if the applicant was open to cutting the corner of the deck at a 45 degree angle. Mr. Nelson said they would accept the 45 degree angle but implored the Board to keep the window because it would not change anything in terms of light or privacy. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) that the request for 2340 Paradise Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional condition of approval that the southeastern comer of the extension of the deck shall be cut back at a 45 degree angle from the point of the existing deck. Vote: 4-0. 4. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 21426; Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing two- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct additions to the rear of the existing structure, adding 1,493 square feet to the two-family dwelling. The project would extend to within 6 feet of the both side property lines, which is less than the 8 foot minimum side yard setback required in the R-2 zone. The project would also have a total floor area of 3,848 square feet, which is greater than the floor area ratio of 3,128 square feet for a property of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-201-32. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 11/6/14 EXHIBIT NO. 5 6 S86 Kyra O'Malley From: Dempsey, Peter 4Peter.Dempsey@ExpressPros.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:23 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: Dempsey, Tracy P. Subject: Planning Division Applicant Address 2340 Paradise Drive Good Afternoon Kyra: I am in possession of the "Site Plan & Architectural Review" information for 2340 Paradise Drive. We are neighbors directly to the east at 2350 Paradise Drive. The request for expanding the existing deck by 144 square feet is completely unacceptable. The greatest value of our property is the views that it affords us and future owners. The most iconic and valuable view in the bay area is the Golden Gate Bridge which our property provides. This view would be significantly impaired from its historic perspective given the plans to expand the deck. The plans for a glass railing provide little solace given the obstacles that tend to populate a deck i.e. umbrella, chairs, tables, barbeques, etc. This planned addition is so troublesome that we have retained an attorney if necessary. Additionally, we are concerned about the "modified" windows and whether or not they include windows on the east side of the house which may impact our privacy. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Peter Dempsey Owner 38 Mitchell Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94903 (415)472-5400 (415)472-0500 fax Peter. dempsey(Mexpresspros.com E Press E LmYm�, PADrf15�3Y4L5 EXiiIBIT N0. JeF 1 Kyra O'Malley, Assistant Planner Town of Tiburon Dear Kyra, September 4, 2014 SEP 1 0 2014 D I was finally able to get down to your office today and review the plans for 2340 Paradise Drive. I was led to believe by the owner, that the project was simply a window replacement and deck expansion. Indeed, it is much more than that) 11 It appears that the existing open attic space is being converted to living space. If I have this wrong, please call and correct my impression. While it does not really affect the floor area ratio, the description of the project is misleading. We object to the conversion of the attic to living space for one very important reason. The north window in the attic looks directly into our master bedroom and master bath. Converting this area to living space will absolutely impact our privacy. This space is currently used for storage. However, whenever there is a light on in the room at night it is like a beacon shining into our master bedroom making it difficult to sleep. Anyone standing at the window can see everything going on in the bathroom and bedroom day or night. We have tolerated this situation, because it is a rarely used room. However, if it does become living space (even a walk-in closet), as shown in the plans, changes must be made to protect our privacy. First, I would like to see obscure glass in the window. Secondly, it should kick out at the bottom to permit ventilation, but not view. And thirdly, it would be either tinted or screened to prevent nighttime glare. And, in the best of all possible scenarios it would become a dummy window. I urge you to consider these changes to the plans and include them as conditions of approval. Sincerely, Sue Zimmerman and Wally Quinn, 1 Vista Del Mar/2343 Paradise Drive I EXHIBIT NO. tn�� Kyra O'Malley From: Dempsey, Peter <Peter.Dempsey@ExpressPros.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:20 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: Dempsey, Tracy P. Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive Good Afternoon Kyra: Thank you for suggesting we take a look at the blue print plans for 2340 Paradise Drive. We are still adamantly opposed to the deck extension because, as we discussed and you viewed, it disrupts a primary view corridor from our living room and kitchen/dining room. As described in our previous email, the view includes Belvedere, Sausalito and the iconic Golden Gate Bridge. This deck extension is further exacerbated by the inevitable addition of deck furniture and umbrella's. After reviewing the plans, another problem surfaced. There is a plan to significantly increase the size of an east facing window near the back (south) side the house. The new window will be 4'X8' mulled to another large window replacing a significantly smaller set of windows. In effect this turns a secondary view corridor into a primary view corridor. The result is that it jeopardizes our plans (plans currently in design stage) to add a deck, impacts our privacy and creates an interior lite annoyance. If there are any questions or need for further clarification, don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Peter Dempsey Owner 38 Mitchell Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 472-5400 (415) 472-0500 fax Peter. dempsey cbexpresspros.com Ekbress- /WMOYMFM PFWESff0IGC5 Rc.NF(I:M f�vil�l.:mn+:laY3 fax•.: C, • rll1d1T NO.� OF \ Kyra O'Malley From: Jeanne Romano <jr@romanogroup.biz> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:27 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: Julia Shumelda Subject: Neighbor feedback for deck remodel at 2340 Paradise Drive Hello Kyra, I understand that you are interested in neighborhood feedback about the proposed remodel to the back deck at 2340 Paradise Drive. My husband, Tony Schofield, and I have reviewed the proposed remodel with Julia Shumelda, and feel that it will be an attractive enhancement to the property. So, we fully support the remodel and do not have any objections to their plans. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Jeanne Romano Tony Schofield 17 Linda Vista Ave Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. Kyra O'Malley From: Michael Moradzadeh <mdm@yachtpc.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:17 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: Julia Shumelda Subject: Project at 2340 Paradise Drive Hello Kyra This is to let you know that Julia Shumelda was kind enough to review her plans for a deck extension with me for her home at 2340 Paradise Drive. We live across the street at 34 Linda Vista Avenue. We have no objection to this modest expansion. Thank you for your time. Michael Moradzadeh and Noelle Leca 34 Linda Vista Avenue Tiburon 415-378-3947 EXHIBIT NO. I 0 �oF� 19 Linda Vista Ave. Tiburon, CA 94920-1918 September 23, 2014 Ms. Kyra O'Malley Design Review Town Hall Offices 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms. O'Malley, pnn"@ SEP 24 ?U14 D PLANNING D!V!.`!0-'-1 We met today with Mrs. Julia Shumelda who reviewed their project at 2340 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA. Please be advised we have no objections to this project. Sincerely, CC. Mrs. Julia Shumelda Patricia M. Lyness EXHIBil NO - � or -II Kyra O'Malley From: Elizabeth Bartels <Iisasart@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:59 AM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: Next Door Neighbors I am a next door neighbor of Julia Schumelda. I am delighted to see her project go ahead. When no ones view is impeded everyone deserves the opportunity and joy of refreshing and renewing their home Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT IN O.� IaFI Kyra O'Malley From: Fran <fhwilfly@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 7:41 AM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive Project Dear Kyra, We are friends of Julia Shumelda and have reviewed her remodeling plans. We strongly support her efforts to upgrade and beautify this residence to retain its historic look and feel while greatly improving its livability. Barry and Fran Wilson 1990 Centro West, Tiburon ' oP Kyra O'Malley From: Carly Bartlett <carlybartlett90@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 26, 201411:58 AM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: drjulia@att.net Subject: 2340 Paradise Dr. Hi Julia, My name is Carly Bartlett. I live at 2360 Paradise Dr. I have reviewed the deck expansion story poles at 2340 Paradise Dr and support the project. Thanks, Carly Bartlett Sent from my Whone EXIRBIT NO -* �or- e Kyra O'Malley From: Juliet Boyd <juliet@hopalong.org> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:35 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: 2340 Paradise Hello Kyra, I live at 2330 Paradise Drive. Julia Shumelda was kind enough to reach out to the neighbors, go over the plans and answer any questions about her project. This email is an endorsement of the deck expansion and window modification at 2340 Paradise Drive. Sincerely, Julie Boyd EXHIBIT NO.� 1 k b 1✓' Kyra O'Malley From: Marissa Miller <miller_marissa@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 2:33 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive Project Dear Ms. O'Malley, Please be advised that Julia Shumelda has reviewed with me the plans for the deck extension and window modification. I am in complete support of the project. Please feel free to call or email with any questions. Thank you, Marissa Miller 2332 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 *********************** Marissa Miller 415.225.1431 EXHIBIT ING. I G Kyra O'Malley From: Kay Freeman <speshellkay2@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:02 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: Julia Shumelda; carol parkinson Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive Dear Ms. O'Malley, I am one of the owners of the rental property at 2330-2332 Paradise Drive in Tiburon, and I am in complete support of the project at 2340 Paradise Drive. Sincerely, Kay Freeman EXHIBIT IN0.17- OF Kyra O'Malley From: rstevens@horwathhtl.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 2:08 AM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive- File 714090 Dear Kyra, Thank you for your email and the opportunity to clarify my position. I do have an issue with the proposed deck expansion as I believe it encroaches my privacy. However, I can understand that Julia wishes to expand her deck. In the event that the Board agrees with her, I believe a compromise of 4 feet rather than 6 feet would be fair. Kind regards, Randy Stevens 2336 Paradise Drive From: Kyra O'Malley fmailto:komalley(cbci.tiburon.ca.us] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:55 PM To: rstevensCalhorwathhtl.com Subject: 2340 Paradise Drive- File 714090 Mr. Stevens - As a follow up td our phone conversation, I wanted to summarize some of your concerns that you have stated regarding the application for 2340 Paradise Drive (File #714090). The applicant proposes to expand their existing deck by 144 square feet (6 feet out from the existing deck). Your concern regarding this extension is the potential privacy impact from your deck. You and your family include your outdoor living space as part of your primary living space. While you sit outside on the deck, you can view the story poles and have the feeling that your neighbor can see you at your deck and could potentially impact your privacy.. You do not have an issue with the deck expansion itself, but feel that you can compromise with the applicant with proposing the deck expansion to be smaller in size, for example, decreasing by 2 feet (4 feet out from the existing location). Please let me know if there is anything else. Thank you, Kyra Kyra O'Malley Assistant Planner Town of Tiburon Community Development Department Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard EXHIBIT NN 0 �dp1 Kvra O'Malle Prom: Julia Shumelda <drjulia@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:12 AM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: Letter to Design Review Board Dear Messrs. Cousins, Tollini, Chong and Kricensky, Regarding the deck extension with glass railing and window modifications at 2340 Paradise Drive, please be advised that we have paid close attention to complying with the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines. 1. There is no request for a variance. 2. We have spoken to all neighbors who are potentially affected by our project and offered to meet with them and our architect, Roger Bartels. We met with 12 neighbors, resulting in 9 letters of support, 2 objections and one letter requesting clarification. Tracy and Peter Dempsey (2350 Paradise) did not respond to our offer to meet. 3. In response to Peter Dempsey's email, please see photos taken by Kyra O'Malley from inside the Dempsey residence (east at 2350 Paradise Drive ). Only one storey pole is visible from photos taken inside their residence. The photos clearly illustrate that our deck expansion and glass railing will NOT a. impact their landmark views b. affect their primary view c. affect the center of their view, as they have a wide panoramic view d. encroach on their horizon line e. block the view of any important objects as defined in the guidelines. 4. On the east side of our home, there are currently four kitchen windows. We propose to remove and replace them with two windows. The new windows are at the furthest point away from the Dempsey residence (southeast corner) compared to the existing windows. The window closest to their residence will be completely eliminated. In addition, there is a high hedge extending the length of the Dempsey residence. Please note that in photos taken from the Dempsey interior, the southeast side of our residence (our kitchen), is essentially not visible due to the high hedge, other than the top 1/3 of the window which we are replacing. This mitigates any light or privacy concerns. 5. It is not possible to comment on any theoretical impact our project would have on the Dempsey's hypothetical deck. 6. Randy Stevens (west of us, at 2336 Paradise Drive) lives in Hong Kong 9-10 months of the year. He was here in late summer and we spoke with him multiple times. a. His deck totals 540 sq. ft. and extends 20 ft. b. Including the proposed six-foot extension, our new deck will total 360 sq. ft. and extend 15 ft. In the event that the DRB approves our six foot deck, we have discussed with him that our gardeners will train the existing bougainvillea growing up the side of his home to create a privacy screen to protect our mutual privacy, then add 2 hanging plants to act as a further privacy screen. Our proposed deck expansion is not in the line of sight of his primary view. EXHIBIT IN-0.� �op 2 7. Sue Zimmerman and Wally ( nn's (north at 1 Vista del Mar) con( is have been addressed by explaining to Wally Quinn that the attic will remain storage space. During the pre -sale inspection by George Dailey from the Town of Tiburon, it was determined that the joists were not sufficient to support a storage load and we were required to remove the plywood flooring. We are reinforcing the joists in the attic in order to put the plywood back down to act as a diaphragm in the event of an earthquake and to restore our storage space. We believe we have complied with all relevant Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines. We would welcome a site visit from you to confirm this. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Julia Shumelda 2340 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 drluliaa-att.net EXHIBIT NO, _ a o' LATE MAIL # 3 Law Offices of JOHN E. SHARP flOb 04 [U 14 24 Professional Center Parkway, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94903 John E. Sharp Telephone: (415) 479-1645 iohn(o)-iohnsharplaw.com Facsimile: (415) 479-8444 November 4, 2014 To: Gordon Cousins, Chair Mike Tollini, Vice Chair Gordon Cousins, Member Linda Emberson, Member Bryan Chong, Member RE: 2340 Paradise Drive: File No. 714090 Applicant: Julia Shumelda Dear Chair Cousins and Members of the Board: I am writing as counsel for Peter and Tracy Dempsey, owners and occupants of 2350 Paradise Drive, immediately adjacent to the property of Julia Shumelda, ("applicant"), located at 2340 Paradise Drive. This letter is written in conjunction with your proceedings of November 6, 2014. Please include this correspondence, and any additional materials and testimony, in the record of proceedings regarding applicant's project. The Board members are invited and encouraged to visit the Dempsey property to observe how the main living areas of the home are negatively impacted by the proposed project. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey submit that the project does not meet the requirements of the Town of Tiburon's Design Review and Hillside Design Guidelines, and thus should be denied. Scope of the Design Review Board's review: Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey's concerns derive from, without limitation, Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-52.020. In particular, section 16-52.020 H mandates "guiding principles" and "guidelines" to be followed by the Board in determining whether the project meets applicable criteria. Among those principles and guidelines is the requirement of attention to privacy (subsection H. 2.), and, as set forth in Goal 3 of the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines, that view protection for primary living areas, including, without limitation, living rooms be afforded. Put another way, in order to approve the proposed project, the Board must make findings, supported by substantial evidence, (California Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, et seq.), that the above -referenced values and guidelines have been satisfied. EXHIBIT NO. IJF3 2. Specific Impacts at 2350 Paradise Drive: The staff report prepared for the project seems to rely on the illustrations set forth in the Guidelines as supporting a determination that Mr. and Mrs. Dempseys' privacy and views are not negatively affected by the proposed project. Offered in support are photographs, which, although taken from the Dempseys' property, do not adequately reflect the reality of the impacts, as follows: a. The photos are taken from a standing position, and are not representative of the use of the living areas in the Dempseys' home. When seated in the living room, which has been designed to take best advantage of seated views, it is obvious that the proposed deck intrudes into a primary view. b. The staff report does not take into account that the proposed deck will contain furniture and other impediments to the view. Indeed, an outdoor umbrella already in use at the eastern edge of the existing deck has had an impact on views. This will only be exacerbated if the project is approved. c. Insufficient attention is given to the impact of the proposed window expansion immediately adjacent to the Dempseys' living room. Applicant and staff seem to believe that the door -sized windows, proposed to replace existing windows, are not oriented toward the Dempseys' living areas, and that existing shrubbery will provide adequate screening. To the contrary, the proposed windows are within feet of the Dempseys' windows, are clearly visible, and any light emanating from those windows will clearly be intrusive into the Dempseys' view. Further, there is no assurance that the so-called landscape screening will be maintained. In fact, it has recently been altered. Concern also exists that the subject expanded windows will also be used to egress the applicant's home, on the east side, should the deck be further expanded, thus, in effect putting a new set of doors immediately adjacent to the Dempseys' property, in potential violation of applicable setback constraints. Conclusion: In summary, contrary to the above-described findings, as demonstrated by photographic evidence, and the site itself, especially as viewed when one is seated in the Dempseys' living room, the proposed deck and windows not only impinge directly in W. and Mrs. Dempseys, views, including the foreground of the Golden Gate Bridge, Sausalito waterfront, and the hills in between, but will allow direct views into the Dempseys' living areas, thus degrading privacy at 2350 paradise Drive. Furthermore, light from the proposed new 4' by 8' windows, directly adjacent to the proposed project, will intrude into the Dempseys' living areas. These impacts are EX IBIT I0. 2.0 a bv;3 contrary to the values and principles to be protected pursuant to the Town Code and California law. For these reasons, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey, it is respectfully requested that the application be denied. Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey, and the undersigned, will appear at the hearing to provide additional information, and to answer any questions the Board may have. Again, Board members are welcome to visit the Dempsey property. Please provide the undersigned with any and all notices, further staff materials and agendas associated with the project. Very Truly Yours, �,�•� .�%'('�f lq((� SSS �WYVV�� F' John E. Sharp, Esq. %I�rillil i iti C1. �,0 3or3 Julia Shumelda 2340 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 November 3, 2014 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Re:2340 Paradise Drive — File No. 714090 Dear Members of the DRB: LATE MAIL # 3 LL"�" V 04 M4 . - This letter is regarding my application for a slight deck expansion and window modification. I wanted to follow up on my email of October 28a because of some changed conditions at the property, and also to further address neighbor comments. We are very pleased with the numerous neighbors who have written letters of support for our very minor project, but we would like to respond to the three letters that raise specific issues. Response to Dempsey (2350 Paradise, directly east) Although our neighbors to the east (Dempsey) just recently trimmed our property line hedge, the deck story poles for our 6 foot deck extension with glass railings still do not enter the Dempseys' primary views, secondary views, or obscure important landmarks in any way. The story poles are so far in the periphery from their primary living areas, that we are surprised this could even be asserted as an issue. In any event, we strongly encourage the DRB to visit the respective properties and see the subject views. We are confident seeing this first-hand will discount the claims being made. In regards to our window replacement proposal, it would add such a minor amount of visible area for the Dempseys, that concerns about light and privacy are unfounded. While we are adding window area, what is critical to consider is how much of that area can actually be seen from the Dempsey property. The answer is: very little. We will bring a clear photo to the hearing showing the before and after and how it will have no impact, the delta being miniscule. A suggestion that we be limited by the Dempseys' future plans for a deck is unreasonable. Response to Stevens (2336 Paradise, directly west) Our neighbor to the west (Stevens) has a 540 square foot deck that extends 20 -feet from his home. He has apparently taken issue with us having a deck that would be 360 square feet and extend 15 -feet from our home. Besides the inequity of such a position, our new deck would only EXHIBIT T N0. 'oP z be visible from a small portion of his deck by a person turning at least 90 degrees, and actively seeking to look away from the City and Bay views and over at our deck, given that our home is set back 10 -feet. in relation to his. This is simply not the type of scenario the design guidelines seek to protect. That being said, we really value our relationship with Randy and would be willing to assist in procuring vegetative screening to address his concerns. Response to Zimmerman/Quinn (1 Vista del Mar, uphill) The letter from Wally Quinn appears to simply be based on a misunderstanding of the plans. We are only proposing that our attic space be restored for use as storage, as it has been for the past 9 years we have lived here (8.5 years as renters, 9 months as owners). The window program on the main living level requires a new truss in the attic, so we are also taking this opportunity to make the attic space compliant with the current building code for storage. We had been required to pull up existing plywood flooring in the attic as a consequence of a Resale inspection, and would like to again have the attic for storage. There will be no impact on the property at 1 Vista del Mar from us continuing to have storage in our attic. The north facing attic window just doesn't seem very visible from the Quinn property, which is a significant distance - across Paradise Drive - from our home. However, the issue is moot since it is simply restoring a storage area, not creating a place for active use. Conclusion We strongly believe that all three of the issues addressed above will be put into context if the DRB makes a site visit. We are very confident that seeing the relationship of the properties in question will demonstrate how the findings for approving this project can certainly be made. Please consider this an invitation to each DRB member to visit our home. Please call or email me at any time to set up a visit: drjulia ,att.net — (415) 435-9995r or (415)595-9995c. Thank you for your consideration of our project. Julia Shumelda EXHIBIT IN 0. )' RM I fir` , I i���.-.. _ �,. i�-a''--- 1 �•.' .. -r•. 7�-[�)�a^.� -^- -'^-4��- -- i- �i, l I I II I IIU FAA -et:pgI I HD GH AG -05 -M LtiWEP- GLDflQ NO N WONB BY a 19 14 ea p io V,_o Rg . 1445F P�K.�=- 'U I n' a FF6 A 09 �NNi X015 14 u N N� Q _ ,a oe 2 snw i I I I I 1 ' I ` .. I. I i • I FE SIC O1 r� I w l ' 1 I ,e1T I I - � 1v RnY-: _.. I I �✓Y_ I � ' IO iiflffE�r. 1 Q Y f 1 1� / ✓`, � % YaM�.'AYY -. . - SMfy� � - '9 85' - i I • ' lY - k c5r8 ' --' �� i- Fi?dH_ Y.9. I I 1 H /, sEPtKSrlmo 1 . � 4.14. J �:_ r s 0°.`rvsmrL4lM'lly —gi F iNK 4-A.i1i1KV�ir—, J' I • eai,.._. I .: ' . ., l/ J I � ' • II _ r I , p I pmt= /�Irp.¢ I �Q !L .. 1 's�l�� 9✓'/✓ I A G I�orTlc'N — T ga or 'L uw r gw/agrlu� P to Px�z I 4 xfSrilJl�lc o' LAW 61, 1 1 I.nYJJ;EJt' � fjZl7G'fvFi� 1✓ F7K GK7r/Cl G'�iGINa{L ASIC—N! (5 M.� I +-1 IyGk- IMYIS kow gGNuMW Ln6 rmSIt7EU4I= 234a rl>r6-r�i4