Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2015-03-18TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 18, 2015 Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting - 730 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Tollini, Mayor Doyle ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of February 24, 2015 special meeting (Town Clerk CraneIacopi) 2. 110 Solano Street - Adopt resolution denying appeal of Planning Commission review of permit to operate a portion of an existing two-family dwelling as a Seasonal Rental Unit (Community Development Department) 3. Town Council/Staff Retreat -Adopt summary of action items from March 6, 2015 Town Council/ Staff Retreat (Town Manager Curran) ACTION ITEMS 1. Award of Contract - Consider award of bid for construction of Dairy Knoll Stairs and Path Improvements Project (Public Works Director Barnes) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2312 Spanish Trail - Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site plan and architectural review for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Malcohn and Bonnie Wittenberg Appellants: Jennifer Dunbar Address: 2312 Spanish Trail Assessor Parcel No.: 059-201-32 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT Report on engaging Rob Epstein, Esq., for interim legal services as needed WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests March 6 &r 13, 2015 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere -Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability -related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL & TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL FEBRUARY 24,2015,6:30 P.M. MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM, REED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1199 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA Draft MINUTES BELVEDERE COUNCIL PRESENT: James Campbell, Sandra Donnell, Claire McAuliffe, Marty Winter, and Mayor Robert McCaskill TIBURON COUNCIL PRESENT: Jim Fraser, Alice Fredericks, Emmett O'Donnell, Erin Tollini, and Mayor Frank Doyle BELVEDERE STAFF PRESENT: City Clerk Leslie Carpentiers, City Manager Mary Neilan, and Police Chief Tricia Seyler TIBURON STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Scott Anderson, Police Chief Michael Cronin, Town Manager Margaret Curran CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING Belvedere Mayor McCaskill presided and called the meeting to order at 6:36 P.M. Tiburon Town Manager Curran called the roll of both Councils: all members present. OPEN FORUM No one wished to speak. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT Presentation by Town and City Staff, and the Yellow School Bus Challenge 2.0 Committee, regarding a proposal to reduce traffic and improve public safety through a school bus subsidy program for the Reed Union School District 2015-2016 School Year Managers Curran and Neilan presented the staff report. Stacy Achuck, Community Member of the Yellow School Bus Challenge 2.0 Committee (YSBC2C) and Reed Union School District parent, asked the Councils to support the Committee's proposal and to particularly encourage ridership. The Council Members asked questions of the staff, assisted by Reed Union School District Superintendent and YSBC2C Member Steven Herzog. Among the points clarified were the following: Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Belvedere City Council & Tiburon Town Council February 24, 2015 Page 2 of 3 The Committee's proposal is that all passes sold will be "one-way" for a specific route to or from school, which offers the greatest flexibility. At the current cost of $847 per child for a round-trip pass, discounted by 50 percent, the cost of a one-way pass for 2015-16 will be $211.75 per way per route. The children carry their pass when boarding the busses. To ensure children board the correct bus, the drivers will check passes and, in the afternoons, volunteer aides at the bus loading area will do the same. The Committee discussed selling a "rainy day" punch -type pass, good for a limited number of days during the year. However, this would have required buses to roll with empty seats most days in order to accommodate extra riders on peak days. It would have made it difficult to decide ahead of time how many regular versus rainy day tickets to make available and at what price in order to cover the cost of each route. Mayor McCaskill asked for comment from the audience Bob Doyle, 1300 Mar West, asked why the school district doesn't provide busses free of charge. Supt. Herzog responded that most school districts in California are not adequately funded to provide bus service and have out it from their budgets. The following persons spoke in favor of implementing the YSBC2C's proposal: Allisa Goleson, Paradise Cay; Rosalind Brandt, Marinero Circle; Paul Luce, Spanish Trail Road; Elizabeth Ury, 18 Lagoon Road; Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge Road East; Ms. Sharazi, 3 Rock Hill Road; Carl Crowley, Corte Madera; Matina Seremetis, at 60 Madrona Avenue; Leah Carp, Corte Palos Verdes; Martin Lauber, 1830 Lagoon View Drive. Bill Rothman, Cliff Road, spoke in favor of the neighborhood school system as the only way to lessen traffic that doesn't unfairly use the tax dollars contributed to the municipalities' general funds by seniors. He said the proposal should not go forward until specific criteria for its success are established, a funding source for the years beyond 2015-16 is clearly identified, and the Town of Corte Madera agrees to pay its share of the one-year ticket subsidy The following suggestions for lessening traffic on Tiburon Boulevard were made by the speakers: • Make bus riding a "cool" thing to do by having volunteers do an activity with the children during the ride. • Request that contractors not come and go to job sites during peak periods, or make it a condition on construction permits. • Improve the entire length of the Ridge Trail for walking and biking. • Have a police officer direct traffic at the lights during peak periods to extend the amount of time given to through traffic. • Install a pedestrian/bike under- or overpass from McKegney Green to Del Mar. • Rebuild the trestle at Trestle Glen for pedestrians and bikes. • Adjust the start of the morning session at St. Hilary's School to prevent the area from becoming a bottleneck. • Encourage bus ridership as a way to reduce the community's carbon footprint. • Issue partial passes good for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. • Push for more carpooling by parents. • From spring to fall, allow contractors to start sooner and finish later. When no one else wished to speak, Mayor McCaskill closed the public comment period Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Belvedere City Council & Tiburon Town Council February 24, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Council Member Donnell spoke in favor of the proposal because it addresses the real problem: getting people out of their cars. Council Member Fredericks said she has changed her opinion of one year ago and endorses the new plan; a year will give time to address inequities and there may well be County funding available when the time comes. Council Member Fraser thanked the Committee's parent volunteers. Council Member O'Donnell thanked Council Member Fraser and said that traffic on congestion has been identified by citizens as the community's largest problem, so spending taxpayer dollars to solve it is appropriate. Mayor McCaskill also thanked Council Member Fraser and the Committee. ,I:�I $ lit'n The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 for the two Councils to conduct separate meetings to discuss the YSBC2C proposal. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER After a brief recess, Mayor Doyle called a meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order. PRESENT: Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Tollini, Mayor Doyle ACTION ITEM I. Consider proposal to proportionately fund the Yellow School Bus Challenge 2.0 for the Reed Union School District 2015-2016 School Year (Town Manager Curran/Chief of Police Cronin) Councilmember Fredericks moved and Mayor Doyle seconded a motion to approve and fund the Yellow School Bus Challenge 2.0 proposal. [Funds were previously budgeted, so no actual budget amendment was necessary.] The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Town Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council, Mayor Doyle adjourned the special meeting at 7:56 p.m. FRANK DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting March 18, 2015 Agenda Item: cc - Subject: 110 Solano Street; Adoption of Resolution Denying Appeal of Planning Commission Review of Seasonal Rental Unit Permit to Operate a Portion of an Existing Two -Family Dwelling as a Seasonal Rental Unit; Courtney and Sandy Anderson, Owners/Applicants; Cathy and Joe Haraburda, Appellants; File No. SRU 2013-01; Assessor's Parcel Number: 059-143- 35 Reviewed By: x4ip BACKGROUND At its meeting of March 4, 2015, the Town Council held a hearing on this item and directed Staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal. The draft resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution. EXHIBIT 1. Draft Resolution Prepared By: Daniel M. watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TisuRON PAGE 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. (Draft) -2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING AN APPEAL BY CATHY AND JOE HARABURDA OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION REGARDING A SEASONAL RENTAL UNIT PERMIT LOCATED ON PROPERTY AT 110 SOLANO STREET WHEREAS, on April 17, 2013, Courtney and Sandy Anderson (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants") submitted an application (File #SRU13-01) to operate a portion of an existing two-family dwelling as a seasonal rental unit on property located at 110 Solano Street; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, Planning Division staff conditionally approved the subject application; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2013, the owners of the property at 120 Solano Street (Joe and Cathy Haraburda, hereinafter referred to as "Appellants") filed a timely appeal of this decision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the appeal on June 26, 2013, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found, after hearing testimony and based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the June 26, 2013 staff report and on the entire record on appeal, that the project, as conditioned, would be generally consistent with the applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, specifically 16-40.040 (Seasonal Rental Units) and 16-52.110 (Home Occupations), and other applicable regulations, but determined that the use of the private driveway and swimming pool shared by the Applicants and the Appellants could result in privacy and noise impacts on the Appellants; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013-07 partially granting the appeal and imposing additional conditions of approval on the seasonal rental unit permit, including limitations on the use of the shared driveway and swimming pool by seasonal renters and a requirement for a review of the permit by the Commission after one year; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a review of the seasonal rental unit permit and, after considering testimony from the Applicants, the Appellants and neighboring property owners and considering all evidence in the record, the Commission determined that the Applicants were operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of their seasonal rental unit permit; and TBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (DRAFT) -2015 MARCH 18, 2015 WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014, the Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's determination of substantial compliance; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2015, the Town Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the appeal; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Town Council determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the Applicants were not in substantial compliance with the requirements of their seasonal rental unit permit, and that the appellants had failed via a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that the Planning Commission had erred in making its determination of substantial compliance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5-0 to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby deny the appeal of Cathy and Joe Haraburda regarding the seasonal rental unit located at 110 Solano Street. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on March 18, 2015, by the following vote: AYES- COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK S. UdndnistrationlTonm CollncifTesolutionsL70151110 Solano Street appeal draft resolutian.doc TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09-2015 MARCH 4, 2015 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 2015 To: Mayor and Town Council From: Peggy Curran, Town Manager Subject: Summary of March 6, 2015 Council -Staff Retreat On the morning of March 6, 2015, the Town Council and staff met for a retreat at Servino Ristorante to review current projects, discuss the state of the Town's budget reserves, review proposed projects and provide direction for the upcoming fiscal year. All Councilmembers were present. The staff members present were the Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Public Works Barnes, Police Chief Cronin, Community Development Director Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Management Analyst Creekmore, Town Clerk Iacopi and Building Official Salzman. One member of the public (Deirdre McCrohan, The Ark Newspaper) attended. The agenda is attached to this memorandum. After calling for oral communication from the public (there was none), Mayor Doyle kicked off the day with a review of the agenda. Manager Curran briefly reviewed activities since the last retreat. Highlights included staffing changes; construction of Dairy Knoll; roads projects, Lyford Dr. storm drain work; the large median project (including fundraising $120,000 to complete); Railroad Marsh clean-out; sidewalk improvements; adoption of the Housing Element update; complete streets policy; McKegney Green use policy, and regulations on e -cigarettes, marijuana dispensaries, plastic bags and solar energy requirements. The big event of last year was the Town's 50th anniversary parties at the end of May. The Yellow School Bus Challenge was held up as an example of a project that took a lot of effort but was not even on the "to do" list last year, having arisen afterwards. The presentation also included slides depicting way -finding signage for Tiburon Boulevard, which has now been approved by Caltrans, and a newly -designed monument style sign for the Old Rail Trail, stating the staff was moving forward to implement both sign projects. Manager Curran handed out the list of objectives from last year updated to reflect the status of projects as of March 6, 2015. Administrative Services Director Bigall led the Council and staff through an explanation of budget reserves. While reserves have dipped as a result of recent capital spending on large projects (such as Diary Knoll and Lyford Parking Lot), the trend is healthy and unallocated reserves (those left over after all the policy requirement for a 25% operating fund "rainy day" reserve is funded) are now up to $2.5 million. MARCH 6, 2015 COUNCIL -STAFF RETREAT SIIMMARY Page 1 of 7 The presentation of reserves prompted a discussion about unfunded liabilities, particularly for Other Post -Employment Benefits (OPEBs). In a related discussion about the relationship between benefits and the ability to attract appropriately trained staff , Council expressed their consensus that we are better off increasing salaries as needed than incurring long-term obligations (like OPEBs) as a tool to attract and retain qualified staff members. Director of Public Works Barnes went through a slide presentation of (1) capital projects in progress, (2) a discussion of the approach Public Works wishes to take with managing projects, and (3) capital projects on the horizon. It was noted that Public Works is fully staffed now for the first time in almost two years. Projects in process included road work, drainage projects, a Rule 20-B undergrounding project from Mar West to the parking lot, Old Rail Trail improvements and two crosswalks: a new one by The Lodge and safety improvements at Ned's Way. For both road and drainage projects, areas in which we have annual work, staff proposes to pursue an approach of bundling like projects into one year to reduce costs and increase efficiencies. For instance, this might mean doing all road slurry work in one year, and doing paving in another time frame, rather than doing both to a lesser degree in the same year. This means making large projects larger and more intermittent. Doing so will reduce soft costs, which decrease as a percentage of projects as the cost of the project increases. In a similar cost-saving vein, staff proposes to return to the Town Council with an ordinance to amend the bidding process to increase, consistent with state law, the size project that qualifies for an "informal" bidding process — moving from $30,000 to $45,000. Director Barnes noted that a great deal more time and paperwork is required for formal bidding processes, so avoiding them where they are not required by state law will both decrease town costs and increase contractor interest, which in turn improves the chances of better bids. Council appeared to concur with these recommendations, which will be manifest in the capital budget Council will consider in the coming months and in returning to Council with an ordinance to amend the municipal code bidding requirements. Anticipated future projects include road slurry (combined to form a larger job in one year per the discussion above), bike/ped improvements in the Blackfield Drive area (grant funded), a major drainage project in the Stewart Drive area, improvements to Town Hall including painting and an overhaul of its outmoded HVAC system, miscellaneous parking lot repairs, tennis court resurfacing and bench/waste receptacle and bike rack replacement and augmentation. Regarding repaving of a pathway by McKegney Green, after some discussion Council determined that the path was redundant and should perhaps be considered for removal instead. Council and staff discussed the notion of eventually overhauling the quality of McKegney Green as a playing field, but acknowledged that this would be a costly undertaking that might require private funding partners. Councilmember O'Donnell offered to assist in fundraising when that time comes. Mayor Doyle thought a plaque containing information about the history of McKegney Green might be instructive for the general public. Several Council -driven project ideas were then discussed. Councilmember O'Donnell took the floor to talk about undergrounding. Several slides were displayed to note the areas in question: MARCH 6, 2015 COI RETREAT SUMMARY Page 2 of 7 U Mar West to Ned's Way; Ned's Way to San Rafael; and Reed Ranch Road to Trestle Glen Boulevard. The early estimate of cost for this undergrounding is $7.3 M. Councilmember O'Donnell described the threefold benefits of undergrounding: safety, aesthetics and reliability. He suggested this might be appropriate for bond funding rather than trying to save up over multiple years to accomplish the task. Doing it all as part of one project would also lower soft costs, as noted above. He suggested perhaps 70 or 80% of it be bond -funded, with the balance being a capital contribution from the Town's reserves. The Councilmember further noted we are in a period of historically low interest rates that make bond funding more attractive now. He sees this as a two-year project. Councilmember Fredericks asked that we confirm that incurring bond debt to consolidate all undergrounding projects would result in a cost savings over phasing successive projects. Vice Mayor Tollini suggested the Town explore: interest rates, how repayment might be achieved or structured, and how we might set aside funding to assist. Councilmember Fredericks noted the political aspects of this will be significant, as incurring debt is always somewhat controversial. Councilmember Fraser said the demographics of the peninsula are changing and this may be more viable now than in the past. The Council concurred the issue is worth further examination. An ad hoc committee of the Vice Mayor and Councilmember O'Donnell was formed for that purpose. Mayor Doyle then spoke about several projects he posited as worthy of consideration. The first was the "Blackie's Pasture 2" (BP -2) project, the reclamation of a portion of Blackie's Pasture for picnicking which would entail some re -grading, soils amendments, hydro -seeding with native grasses, limited irrigation for some shade trees, rerouting of paths and related improvements. The idea is to make what is now an unappealing area crisscrossed with paths into a desirable destination. Vice Mayor Tollini suggested the addition of grills for the picnic tables; Mayor Doyle explained they might include some concrete seating around the table areas (envisioned as circles of decomposed granite), and agreed the grills might be a further enhancement to make them more attractive areas. The estimate for these on this area, just under one acre, is $140,000. The Council reiterated its previous support for this concept. The Mayor then went on to discuss his second idea: installing a fitness court in the vicinity of South of Knoll Park. He characterized his goal as "activating" the area (a description he also applied to the BP -2 project and the water access proposal, discussed next). The fitness court would be 37' square, and offers a seven minute total body workout. He noted the cost is about $100,000 (not including installation). After some discussion, it appears the Council was not inclined to pursue this project at this time. The Mayor's third offering regarded a means to create access to the Bay for small, non -motorized water craft, noting we are a peninsula in the Bay yet lack access for the public to our watery surroundings. As with the items above, he described this as "activating" the town, and further sees doing this in the vicinity of Shoreline Park would serve to help energize downtown. Councilmember Fredericks questioned whether a put -in on Shoreline Park would really boost downtown economic activity, and whether this might inadvertently create conflicting uses with others in the park. Others analogized it to cyclists, who come through downtown and end up patronizing local restaurants or coffee shops while here. As part of his exploration of this idea, the Mayor spoke with a local person who installs docks for this purpose on the peninsula. His MARCH 6, 2015 COUNCIL -STAFF RETREAT SLTVIVMARY Page 3 of 7 cost estimate is $100,000 to $120,000 for the project. The Mayor presented some graphic representations of what a ramp and dock might entail if it were near the Donahue Building or Elephant Rock. Councilmember Fraser asked if the Town could create another vehicle loading area along Paradise Drive to support a kayak put -in; staff said yes, the Town owns both the road and the park so that would be possible if desired. Vice Mayor Tollini expressed enthusiasm for the idea of a put -in. Councilmember O'Donnell asked if we could consider something simpler, like concrete stairs down to the water along the Shoreline Park shore, to avoid building something large in that area. Staff noted that any put -in must be ADA compliant under the law. The Mayor restated this is just an idea and that experts will need to design it before we can understand its parameters and whether it is feasible. In a summation of the Mayor's three ideas, Council concurred that the BP -2 and water put -in ideas should be enthusiastically explored further, and understands that some funding will be used to flesh out these concepts before they return to Council for consideration. Councilmember Fredericks expressed support for the BP -2 project and said she loves the idea of water access if we can overcome the difficulties in siting one. She also declared the fitness court to be "ugly". Councilmember O'Donnell also said he supported BP2, and commented on the important of water access. Regarding the fitness court, however, he said the demographics of the Marina area, where the a fitness court seems to be working well, are different than Tiburon. Council consensus emerged that the fitness court concept will not be pursued at this time. The Mayor said he concurred with the Council's priorities for the projects. Some other ideas and discussions arose before the group recessed for lunch. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether we could work with Blazing Saddles (bike rental company) to improve how they manage getting people on the ferry at the end of their rides. Councilmember Fredericks said there were some discussions of having people purchase a return ferry ticket when they rent their bike that would guarantee them a ride back. Councilmember Fraser asked if it might not make sense for us to work with other cities in Marin impacted by bike rentals to see if something mutually beneficial could be developed. Councilmember O'Donnell then moved to the issue of seasonal rentals, expressing a desire to see the Town improve its policy to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of excessive short term rentals. One suggestion by Planning Manager Watrous was to require the property in question be the permanent dwelling of the party renting it out (to avoid people simply using a property for rentals rather than their home). Police Chief Cronin noted that banning an activity, like short term rentals, is the clearest approach from an enforcement point of view. Councilmember Fredericks asked if perhaps we should be charging more for permits to cover the cost of enforcement. In a related conversation, Councilmember Fredericks noted that some use of private homes for filming can create burdens on neighborhoods and suggested we should require insurance and notice to neighbors when filming will occur. Limiting the number or duration of such uses might be helpful. Council concurred that the policy for both short term rentals and filming, both commercial uses of residential property, should be revisited; Council directed staff to return with suggested amendments. Vice Mayor Tollini briefly addressed the question of priorities — how they are set, especially for projects that arise outside the context of the budget during the year. After some reference to chimps, Councilmember Fredericks suggested using Survey Monkey to ask Town residents their opinions on priorities. Councilmember Fraser suggested we make priority -setting a part of the MARCH 6, 2015 COI INCIL-STAFF RETREAT SUMMARY Page 4 of 7 budget process. Councilmember O'Donnell recommended greater use of Tiburon Talk to get the word out about the Town's budget and priority setting discussions. The group recessed for lunch around 12:15, and reconvened around 1:15. Councilmember Fredericks opined that we lack, and would benefit from, a public art policy, both for permanent and temporary installations. A policy should identify constraints (like view obstructions), time, place and manner, liability, responsibilities for installation and removal, and so forth. Councilmember Fraser raised the question of the Heritage and Arts Commission and what role might be appropriate for them to play. In response, the group appeared to agree that it would like the Council to first set parameters of what it wants to see with regard to public art and then ask the H&A Commission for its input. On the question of art, Councilmember Fraser noted that this year's Art by the Bay exhibit did not hit the high mark of the prior year. Councilmember O'Donnell opined that he liked the linkage between art exhibits and the Art Festival or the Art Walk — believing that to be a useful tool to manage the public art process. Councilmembers Fredericks and O'Donnell agreed to form a Council ad hoc committee to explore an art policy for the Town. Discussion continued with a desire expressed to revive the Plein Air art competition, to continue to use Shoreline Park as an art venue without the "handcuffs" we have witnessed over the Gallows Wheels. Staff was directed to investigate what other Plein Air art festivals are doing to attract enough quality artists for success. Vice Mayor Tollini moved the conversation to the issue of walkability and her desire to see more sidewalks and paths to increase our friendliness to pedestrians and cyclists. She noted that a sidewalk between the Library and Reed Elementary School would be useful, as well as one between Gilmartin Drive and San Rafael Avenue to compensate for the lack of a safe crosswalk opportunity in that area. The Vice Mayor thought it might be good to ask the public what it would like to see in the way of sidewalks. Councilmember O'Donnell said he would like to explore having the Old Rail Trail or other sidewalk improvements continue through and beyond the Mar West intersection. He referenced the potential to close off the entrance to Lagoon and Cove Roads at Mar West, if that was agreeable to neighbors, to install a three-way traffic roundabout in that location. Doing so might accomplish three things: simplify intersection movements, allow for installation of a green belt to buffer neighbors from Tiburon Boulevard, and allow for the Old Rail Trail to continue through the Mar West intersection to hook up with the existing Boulevard bike lane and a new Boulevard crosswalk that would alight at the soon-to-be built Library pedestrian plaza. He noted that the Library is a major destination for children, and this would make connections safer and simpler for them and all users. This idea appeared to have wide appeal to the Council as a means of enhancing pedestrian and bike connectivity in the downtown in concert with Library expansion plans. The discussion of walkability concluded with Vice Mayor Tollini and Councilmember Fraser asking staff to explore the costs of installing sidewalks in various locations including Mar West Street to Reed Elementary School and Gilmartin Drive to San Rafael Avenue. Councilmember Fraser turned the conversation to the status of the contract between the Town and Mill Valley Refuse Service, particularly regarding charges for the higher levels of service beyond normal curbside pickup. He remarked that he did not realize, and thinks many others did not as well, that the $15 surcharge for the service for collecting from a can that is not already curbside is MARCH 6, 2015 COI1NCIL-STAFF RETREAT SUMMARY Page 5 of 7 a one-way charge. If one wants the can returned to its original location another $15 is levied. Administrative Services Director Bigall verified the accuracy of that statement, and noted that MVRS is willing to work out arrangements with elderly and disabled customers. Councilmember Fraser asked that the MVRS agreement be brought back to the Town Council for reconsideration of the surcharge at the first opportunity, which most like will be when MVRS next seeks a rate increase this spring. Council concurred with this approach. Councilmember Fraser went on to speak about the Town's sign regulations, stating that the sign ordinance is lengthy at 26 pages, hard to work with, and may be out of step with the needs of the community today. The Town Attorney noted that some of its length is a consequence of the challenges presented by compliance with the First Amendment, which only allows sign regulations that impose clear, objective restrictions. Councilmember Fraser suggested that the ordinance be revisited and that it not be just an internal review but that some merchants be asked to join the process. Council concurred with this notion and direction; Mayor Doyle offered to assist Councilmember Fraser and staff in this effort. Community Development Director Anderson then gave a brief status report via a PowerPoint presentation on Sea Level Rise (SLR). This included a FEMA flood map update and a summary of the major ramifications for affected properties in Tiburon, which are primarily in Downtown and along the bayfront. He said the Town would see smaller, piecemeal remodel projects on affected parcels as owners try to avoid falling into the substantial improvement category. With respect to sea level rise, Anderson said in the short range, there is a county -wide effort underway and that he has approached the Romberg Center about partnering with the Town on a Tiburon - peninsula focused study that would hopefully also involve the City of Belvedere and County of Marin. Longer -range efforts will be informed by these Vulnerability Studies that constitute a logical first step in addressing sea level rise. Councilmembers endorsed the notion of partnering with Belvedere and the County on this effort. The discussion shifted to mention of the proposed traffic signal for the N. Knoll intersection with Tiburon Boulevard, which is outside the Town's jurisdiction but nevertheless may impact the traffic experienced by residents coming and going from the peninsula. The Mayor inquired if he should send a letter to the County urging their evaluation of alternatives to a signal. The Council responded with agreement. Councilmembers then offered several brief reports regarding the regional boards and commissions on which they sit, as well as comments on a few miscellaneous items: Regarding MCCMC, Councilmember Fredericks noted that the group has put together an ad hoc sea level rise committee which is looking to pursue funds for the development of vulnerability studies. Having received some inquiries from the neighborhood, Vice Mayor Tollini asked about the possibility of speed humps or reduced traffic speeds for Hawthorne Drive. Chief Cronin responded that the Town cannot install speed humps without approval from the Fire District; they tend to oppose humps for their effect of slowing their response time and damaging their equipment. The Chief also noted that under state law we are limited in our ability to reduce traffic speeds unless certain criteria are met, which would not be the case on Hawthorne. MARCH 6, 2015 COITNCIL-STAFF RETREAT SIIMMARY Page 6 of 7 Councilmember O'Donnell moved the conversation to Marin Clean Energy. He reported it is "growing like gangbusters" and now provides a renewable energy choice to customers in 17 cities, including several in the East Bay area. The energy MCE provides is now a minimum of 50% renewable. Everyone was pleased, and it was noted that Tiburon was the very first city to vote to join MCE back during its formation. He said it was now a $75 million dollar business and mentioned the Governor's energy bill, SB 350, regarding the "three 50s" for the future: 50% emission reductions; 50% renewable energy sources and one other. Following on the energy theme, Councilmember Fredericks advised that PG&E's proposed electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure roll out should be watched carefully; she said that legislation (AB 1236) was in the pipeline that would require cities to permit PG&E to install the stations (putatively at ratepayer expense and using public property) and limit a local jurisdiction's ability to condition approval of these permits. Councilmember Fredericks also gave a brief update on TAM activities and analyses, including traffic modelling, prompting Councilmember O'Donnell to opine that TAM may be too bureaucratic in its pursuit of "study after study", swallowing up resources that should be going into capital improvements. Councilmember Fredericks suggested we may need to accept this situation even if we don't like it because TAM can bring valuable resources to the county and town, and consolidated plans are necessary to obtain funds. Mayor Doyle updated the group on the activities of the MCCMC homeless action committee, explaining that Rotation Emergency Shelter Team (REST) and Marin Organizing Committee (MOC) members are now looking to raise $350,000 for a permanent 24/7 shelter, location to be determined, and are working more closely with the existing service providers in the County to coordinate activities. This is a departure from their earlier plan to build a nighttime only shelter to replace the current sheltering taking place in churches and synagogues. The MOC and REST activists still hope to obtain funding contributions from each of the cities in Marin. Councilmember O'Donnell said he believed we should help out, as homelessness is a regional issue for all of us whether or not we have homeless people in our immediate community. In conclusion, Mayor Doyle thanked his fellow Councilmembers and staff. All the Councilmembers took the opportunity to say very nice things about the "amazing" work staff does all year long; Councilmember O'Donnell ended on a note saying no one is out there with pitchforks, so we must be doing a pretty good job. The retreat then adjourned at 3:00 p.m. FRANK X. DOYL , MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IAC PI, TOWN CLERK MARCH 6, 2015 Coi 1NCIL-STAFF RETREAT SIJM MARY Page 7 of 7 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Office of the Town Manager Town Council Meeting March 18, 2015 Agenda Item: Subject: Recommendation to Award the Dairy Knoll Stairs and Path Improvements Project to Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. Reviewed By: (I BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS From the outset of the Dairy Knoll project, the Town has envisioned the installation of a direct walking route between Reed Elementary School and the Dairy Knoll recreation facility. To build any pathway the Town needed access property from the Chandler's Gate (CG) development or AT&T property. After extensive negotiations and a third vote of their members, CG agreed to a sale of 200 square feet of their property. On July 2, 2014 the Town Council approved the purchase agreement with Chandler's Gate. On July 16, 2014 the Town Council approved Resolution No. 34-2014, accepting a grant deed from the Chandler's Gate Homeowners Association for land to construct a pathway from near Chandler's Gate to the Dairy Knoll Recreation Facility. This established the path route and design began in earnest. Early in the design it became apparent that the planning level construction budget was low. In an attempt to stay close to budget, staff and the design team looked at three different alignments and four different materials for construction. On September 3, 2014 Council approved increasing the budget for the project to $152,100 to cover the cost of the property, the fence and the increased cost of construction. Bids for the project were opened on September 16, 2014. Of the four bids received, the low bid was $134,420, or $33,927 higher than the engineer's estimate. This brought the total cost of the project to $201,000. Town Council directed the Town Manager to reject all bids for the Dairy Knoll Pathway Project. Since that time staff found a fence for the Chandler's Gate Property that is estimated at about $13,000, saving about $7,000. At the direction of the Dairy Knoll Committee the project was rebid. Bids were opened on March 3, 2014. Five bids were received. The low bidder was Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. with a bid of $116,909. This includes the cost of the conduit which was not included in the previous bid. As a result costs for the project have dropped significantly compared to October 2014. TOWN OF TIBURON 'PAGE 1 OF 2 Town Council �Vlec01111 October 1, 2014 Given the current budget of $152,100, an additional $10,136 is needed to provide proper contingency for this project. While staff hopes not to spend the contingency, it is prudent to have these funds available to cover unknowns. Staff notes that the Median project used only 2% of contingency funds and the Lyford Storm Drain was completed for less than the bid price (deduction). FINANCIAL IMPACT The current project is funded in the amount of $152,100. An additional $10,136 is needed to provide proper contingency for this project. This funding will come from Measure A Parks funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Amend the CIP budget to increase the funding for the project to $162,236 for the Access and Pathway Improvements for the Dairy Knoll Recreation Facility. 2. Move to approve the award of contact for the Dairy Knoll Stairs and Path Improvements Project to Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. in the amount not -to -exceed $116,909 with 15 percent contingency of $17,536. Prepared by: Patrick Barnes, Director of Public Works Peggy. Curran, Town Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 or 2 October 2014 March 2015 Construction Cost $134,420 $116,909 Electrical Conduit $8,500 Included above Contingency $21,438 $17,536 Property $5,000 $5,000 Chandler's Gate Fence $21,654 $12,931 Design and CM $7,500 $7,500 Survey for Property $2,360 $2,360 $200,872 $162,236 Given the current budget of $152,100, an additional $10,136 is needed to provide proper contingency for this project. While staff hopes not to spend the contingency, it is prudent to have these funds available to cover unknowns. Staff notes that the Median project used only 2% of contingency funds and the Lyford Storm Drain was completed for less than the bid price (deduction). FINANCIAL IMPACT The current project is funded in the amount of $152,100. An additional $10,136 is needed to provide proper contingency for this project. This funding will come from Measure A Parks funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Amend the CIP budget to increase the funding for the project to $162,236 for the Access and Pathway Improvements for the Dairy Knoll Recreation Facility. 2. Move to approve the award of contact for the Dairy Knoll Stairs and Path Improvements Project to Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. in the amount not -to -exceed $116,909 with 15 percent contingency of $17,536. Prepared by: Patrick Barnes, Director of Public Works Peggy. Curran, Town Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 or 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 March 18, 2015 Agenda Item: N_/ Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Road; Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Two -Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks; Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg, Owners/Applicants; Jennifer Dunbar, Appellant; File No. 21426; Assessor's Parcel Number: 059-201- 32 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: 2312 Spanish Trail Road Assessor's Parcel Number: 059-201-32 File Number: Property Owners: Applicant/Architect: Lot Size: Zoning: General Plan: Flood Zone: SUMMARY 21426 Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg Hank Bruce Architects 11,278 Square Feet R-2 (Two -Family Residential) H (High Density Residential) X (Outside 500 -year storm event) On January 15, 2015, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard and both side yard setbacks, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail Road. The owner of the property at 2356 Spanish Trail (Jennifer Dunbar), hereinafter referred to as "appellant," filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision. The appeal is attached as Exhibit 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. On the first floor, the kitchen and third bedroom would be expanded toward the front and the great room and second bedroom would be expanded toward the rear. A bathroom and closet addition would be added toward the front of the second floor. The basement floor would now include a living and dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms and one bathroom. Decks would be added to the rear of the first and second floors. The TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7 Toc%n Council Meering March 18, 2015 existing detached garage would be expanded from its current substandard depth of 15 feet, 8 inches to a new depth of 18 feet, 6 inches. As approved by the Design Review Board, the proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,029 square feet, which would be 92 square feet less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The lot coverage on the site would be 2,256 square feet (20.1 %) of the site, which would be less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of the structure, which is situated within 5 feet, 10 inches of the west side property line and 7 feet, 3 inches of the east side property line, within the side yard setback of both side property lines. The additions would extend to within 5 feet, 8 inches of the left (east) side property line and to within 5 feet, 10 inches of the right (west) side property line, in lieu of the standard eight (8) foot setbacks required by current zoning. Additions would also encroach to within 3 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the existing 2 foot, 6 inch building setback and less than the 15 minimum front yard setback required in the R-2 zone under current zoning. Variances are therefore requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks. The residence at 2312 Spanish Trail Road was constructed prior to incorporation into the Town under Marin County zoning standards. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This application was first reviewed at the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property raised concerns about the mass and size of the proposed project compared to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood and potential view impacts on the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board shared these concerns and concluded that the size of the project was too large for the neighborhood and that the visual mass of the proposed project was unacceptable. The Board also indicated that it could not support the requested variances or floor area exception. The application was continued to the December 4, 2014 Board meeting. The applicant subsequently indicated that a new architect had been hired for the project and requested a further continuance to the December 18 meeting. Revised plans were submitted by the new architect prior to the December 18 meeting. However, the revised plans included a modified request for a side yard setback variance and a new request for a reduced front yard setback variance that had not been previously noticed for that project. As a result, the application was continued to the January 15, 2015 meeting. At the December 18, 2014 meeting, the Board took testimony from neighboring residents and provided preliminary comment on the revised project plans. The neighbors at 2356 Spanish Trail stated that the revised project would still result in view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for their home. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that the revised project design was a significant improvement and moved the project in the right direction. The Board felt that the rear decks were too large, particularly off the second bedroom, and should be reduced in size. The Board then continued the application to the January 15, 2015 meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 Town Council Meeting March is, Zoo The applicants submitted revised plans on January 5, 2015. The area of the first floor deck was reduced in front of the second bedroom, with a 4 foot, 8 inch deep deck proposed in front of the bedroom and connecting to the larger deck attached to the adjacent great room. The roof was hipped on both sides on the upper level to pull portions of the roofline further from the sides. Several of the proposed windows on both sides of the house were modified, including a larger window on the east side of the second story bedroom and larger windows on the west side of the first floor. The floor area of the basement was reduced by 7 square feet. A revised color and materials board was submitted, indicating that the exterior of the building would be finished in gray colored stucco with white trim and light brown wood shingles would be installed on the roof. At the January 15, 2015 meeting, the Board took testimony from neighboring residents and commented on the revised project plans. The neighbors at 2356 Spanish Trail and their attorney raised objections to the revised project design, but noted that their main concerns centered on the size of the great room extension and deck, and on the bedroom deck closest to their home. The Boardmembers supported the variance requests and suggested that pulling the great room addition and deck back four feet from the rear represented an appropriate compromise. The Boardmembers asked the applicants if they would prefer to continue the application or accept a condition of approval to pull back the pop -out and deck. When the applicant stated that he needed more time to determine whether to make the requested changes or not, the Board voted to continue the application to the February 19, 2015 meeting. Immediately after the vote was made, the applicant changed his mind and agreed to make the changes recommended by the Board. The Board rescinded the continuance and voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the revised plans, with the additional conditions of approval that the south wall of the fust floor great room and the adjacent deck be pulled back 4 feet and that an adequate landscape plan be approved by staff prior to issuing the building permit. On January 26, 2015, the appellant filed a timely appeal of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are four (4) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The Design Review Board should have required the complete removal of the deck to the rear of the first floor bedroom. Staff Response: As noted above, at the December 18, 2014 meeting, the Design Review Board expressed concerns that the rear decks were too large, particularly off the second bedroom, and should be reduced in size. In response, the applicants reduced the area of the first floor bedroom deck to a 4 foot, 8 inch deep deck in front of the bedroom, which would connect to the larger great room deck. The consensus of the Board was that the bedroom deck had been reduced to essentially a walkway. The Board felt that further reducing the size of the great room deck was more important in reducing potential privacy concerns for the appellant than eliminating a walkway that was unlikely to be used for entertaining due to its narrowness. The Board also noted the proximity of the applicants' and appellant's homes to other dwellings in the vicinity, typical of the Lyford TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 7 Tow) Council \leering March 16. 2015 Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood, and recognized that buying a home in such an area means being part of a neighborhood where one sees and hears other residents with frequency. Ground #2: The size of the building would block sunlight and result in a structure that would loom over the appellant's home. Staff Response: At the December 18, 2014 meeting, the project architect presented shadow studies for the proposed additions that showed only minimal shadows that would be caused by the project at certain times of the year, with little or no such impacts during most of the year. The Design Review Board acknowledged that the revised project design substantially lessened the visual mass of the proposed additions when compared to the original project design by moving much of the proposed floor area toward the front of the site and out of the appellant's view. The Board also noted that the requested side yard setbacks were not substantially smaller than the required eight (8) feet at points near the appellant's home. Ground #3: A complete landscape plan is necessary to determine the potential impacts of the project. Staff Response: The Design Review Board agreed with the appellant that additional privacy landscaping needed to be planted along the shared property line. The following condition of approval was added by the Board at the January 15 meeting: 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for this project, a more detailed landscape plan shall be approved by Planning Division staff. This plan shall incorporate appropriate landscaping to provide privacy protection for neighboring property owners to the satisfaction of Planning Division staff. The Board determined that Planning Division staff would be able to determine the extent of additional landscaping necessary to provide additional privacy protection for the appellant and insure that the required vegetation be planted as part of the construction of this project. Ground 44: The required findings cannot be made to support the requested variances. Staff Response: In order to grant the requested variances, the Design Review Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 Towii Council Meering March 16, 7-015 The subject property has an unusual shape and is very narrow at the location of the existing structure on the site, resulting in existing nonconforming side yard and front yard setbacks. The L-shaped property has a width of approximately 70 feet at the point where the existing structure is located, resulting in a limited building footprint. The building is also located on the uphill portion of the lot, only 2 feet, 3 inches from the front property line. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Numerous other homes in the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood have nonconforming setbacks or have been granted variances for reduced setbacks. Many of the homes in the vicinity were also constructed prior to incorporation of the Town under Marin County zoning standards and do not comply with existing Tiburon zoning requirements. The Design Review Board has historically granted many variances in the same or similar zones to accommodate additions to buildings with such nonconforming setbacks. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. Currently, the existing structure is located within both side yard setbacks and the front yard setback. The Design Review Board has often determined that it would be an unnecessary physical hardship to require additions to such structures to have to "step in" from existing exterior walls to comply with the required side yard setbacks, instead of following the alignment of the existing building. The location of the proposed additions further into the required front yard setback is warranted due to the practical difficulty caused by proposing additions to the rear of the building that would intrude into views for neighboring residences. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. As noted above, the revised project design would pull back and reduce the visible mass of the building when viewed from the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail when compared to the original project design. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed additions would not substantially intrude into the views from the neighboring residence and that the reduced size of the first floor deck should limit any potential privacy issues from the project. As a result, the project would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 7 Town Council Mecting March is, 3015 From the evidence provided, the Design Review Board determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances. 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 project design, as conditionally approved by the Board, would adequately address potential privacy, sunlight and visual impact concerns and the Board was able to make the findings required to support the requested variances. 19aLd13uu1DQ107:M1_1030 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 3), 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. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of appeal 2. Appeal procedures 3. Notice of Action and adopted conditions of approval 4. Design Review Board staff report dated November 6, 2014 5. Design Review Board staff report dated December 18, 2014 6. Design Review Board staff report dated January 15, 2015 7. Minutes of the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting k e 6j 8. Minutes of the December 18, 2014 Design Review Board meeting n� 9. Minutes of the January 15, 2015 Design Review Board meeting 10. Letter from Richard Wodehouse, dated October 28, 2014 ��� IMLL-- 11. Letter from Richard Wodehouse, dated October 28, 2014 12. Letter from Pamela Hoath, dated October 28, 2014 13. Letter from Anne Drew, dated October 29, 2014 14. Letter from David Kirchhoff, dated October 29, 2014 15. Letter from Lynn Henriksen, dated October 29, 2014 16. Letter from Sue Zimmerman, dated October 30, 2014 17. Letter from Celia DeMartini, dated October 31, 2014 18. Letter from Shelley Brown and Jay Bellin, dated October 31, 2014 19. Letter from Michael Heckmann, dated November 5, 2014 20. Letter from Jennifer Dunbar, dated November 6, 2014 21. Letter from Jannette and Paul Mussche, dated November 6, 2014 22. Letter from Richard Wodehouse, dated December 15, 2014 23. Letter from Celia DeMartini, dated December 15, 2014 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 7 Town Council Weting March 18, 20r, 24. Letter from Celia DeMartini, dated December 16, 2014 25. Letter from Stephen Bradley, dated December 17, 2014 26. Letter from Riley Hurd, dated December 17, 2014 27. Letter from Scott and Alice Schneidewind, dated December 18, 2014 28. Letter from Jennifer Dunbar, dated January 12, 2015 29. Letter from James Browne, dated January 12, 2015 30. Letter from Riley Hurd, dated January 14, 2015 31. Letter from Lawrence Drew, dated January 15, 2015 32. Letter from Celia DeMartini, dated March 9, 2015 33. Letter from Malcolm Wittenberg, dated March 9, 2015 Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager S UdminisiradonlToirn CoundMtaffBepor1s120151March 18 Drafts12312 Spanish Trail appeal reporl.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 7 EXHIBIT 1,10,, APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary) Name: Mailing Address:, TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard 0tburon, Gi 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 www. c i. t iburen. ca. us cc: ecj Telephone:o�jZa FAX and/or email (optional): ACTION BEING APPEALED 41 `moo ¢ -111-'3r-Ax 4 Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: / nS/&!m 400A -12L Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: CrAz /'C1 't cvd/-6-- Name of Applicant: kSonn LG' 4-rl7 91,1-LcolA Type of Application or GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) L- E C E 0 ? E ECE0UE BUJ JAN 20: 2 � ,35 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF USE ONLYBELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: �' Z b `/� Date Appeal Filed: f- m 2 Fee Paid: ��%� Receipt No. Date of Appeal Hearing: � ���/r Arrt2{-t� NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $3O flat fee for non -applicant S:IAdmhsistrationlFcrmsWotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc �� Revised March 2010 �aiJ 2 E ui5 TOWN CLERK January 26, 2015 TOWN OFTIBURON Dear Members of the Town Council, This letter accompanies our appeal of the project at 2312 Spanish Trail. We live directly next door at 2356 Spanish Trail and have no choice but to appeal this project due to the incredibly significant impacts that continue to affect our home. We were thankful that the DRB acknowledged and attempted to address our concerns, but confusion and rushing at the end of the final hearing on this matter led to the approval of a project that does not fit within the findings required by the Town's Code. We are confident that when you see the story poles from our kitchen, deck, and bedroom, you will agree. We are appealing three aspects of the project: 1. The overall size of the house (and the resulting impacts) 2. The size and location of the rearyard decks, and 3. The variances allowing for encroachments into both sideyard setbacks. Background Our home and the home of the applicants have a very unique interface in terms of siting. Our primary view and privacy corridors are directly over the rear portion of our neighbors' lot. Admittedly, this setup makes implementing a large addition at 2312 difficult to do in a respectful fashion. However, as noted by the DRB, this is a condition that existed at the time the applicants bought the house, it's not a condition that we created, and it's a constraint that the applicants must work within if they are going to expand. (The obvious nature and limits of this condition surely played a part in the final sales price of 2312.) The owners of 2312 originally proposed a very large home for the lot, with an FAR exception, setback variances, and a bulky design with decks against our property. The DRB decided that proposal was a nonstarter. The owners then hired a new architect, who designed a max -FAR house that pushed more to the street than the rearyard. However, the theme of huge decks in our line of sight and right near our primary living spaces continued. The DRB again told the applicants to amend the project, and to reduce the size of the decks significantly. Specific direction was given to pull the decks back from our home such that they lined up with the new great room at 2312. In response to that precise direction, the owners slightly reduced the decks, but still left them in the impactful area near our kitchen and bedroom. In other words, they did not do as the DRB directed. EXHIBIT N0. ( 1 P. -z L4- At the final hearing on this matter, the DRB required that the applicants pull back their great room from the rear of the property and bring the deck with it. While this was certainly helpful for us, and a move we believe was absolutely required to get anywhere near an approval, the DRB (we believe mistakenly) did not require the removal of the deck in the area of the 2nd bedroom, closest to our house. This was despite the previous direction to do so, and also despite 2 of the 3 DRB members stating that this area was unacceptably impactful. We believe this happened in the confusion that occurred when the DRB continued the item, but then the applicant jumped up and accepted the reduction of the great room, which resulted in an approval. Whether the remaining decking near our house was inadvertently or purposefully overlooked, we believe that its inclusion is grounds for appeal in and of itself. House Size Maximizing the FAR of the house has been a theme of this application since the beginning. We do not have a conceptual problem with a large house, but we do take issue when the size of the house results in unacceptable impacts on our home. This bulky new structure will greatly block our afternoon sun. (See photo of sun in the story poles attached as Exhibit A.) A lot of the looming nature is driven by the roof design, which is changing from a pitched roof to a much flatter, and taller, hipped design. This results in a canyon effect between the home and our bedroom, kitchen and sideyard. The desire to make the home so large is exacerbated by its presence in the setback towards our house, which we discuss below. Many of the home's impacts could be reduced by recognizing that this highly constrained lot is the exact reason that FAR is a maximum, not a guarantee. The Decks Our number one issue with the project continues to be the size and location of the decks. As noted above, we were very thankful for the DRB's requirement that the great room be pulled in, and that the first level deck come in with it. While the pulling of the deck from back to front certainly helps us, it is crucial that the deck also be pulled away from our home. The DRB was spot on at the second meeting when they told the applicants that the deck should come no closer to our home than the Limit of the new great room. Unfortunately, the applicants did not comply and the approved design still goes beyond. Please refer to the diagram attached as Exhibit B, which shows our main area of concern (crosshatched). As you can see, by allowing the deck off the great room to wrap around and continue in front of Bedroom 2, it brings the main portion of that deck much closer to our property. We can already see and hear almost everything that goes on next door; allowing this portion to remain will only exacerbate an already difficult privacy situation. EXHIBIT N0. ( 2 P- 3opu Landscape and Fence While the deck arguably impacts our peripheral view, it is important to reiterate that our issue is mainly one of privacy, not blocked landmark views. (This seemed to be an area of confusion for the DRB). It is for this reason that we feel a fully completed Landscape plan is crucial aspect of considering and approving this project. The manner and type of property line screening will be one of the most important factors in mitigating the effects of the new home. Additionally, as evidenced by our recent land survey, the current fence between the properties encroaches onto our property by approximately 18". We would expect to see the fence line corrected with the new additions. Variances Given the proximity of the two homes, allowing the applicants to build more structure into the setbacks is just crazy. We hired an attorney to analyze this issue, and his analysis is found in the letter attached as Exhibit C. While we may not be lawyers, we do understand that a variance is a special privilege, and that it's one that is only to be used when it won't negatively impact those living around a project. Conclusion While the current project design is hugely impactful to our home, we feel there are relatively minor changes that would go a very long way in addressing our concerns while having a minimal impact on the utility of the applicants' new home. The easiest change would be the elimination of the crosshatched portion of deck shown on Exhibit B. Not building in the setbacks and reducing the looming facades of the home would also make a big difference in the enjoyment of our property. Finally, developing a meaningful landscape plan now is really important. We thank the Council in advance for your consideration of this appeal and hope that resolution that works for both properties can be achieved. Respectfully, Jennifer Dunbar and Richard Wodehouse Homeowners of 2356 Spanish Trail EXHIBIT N0. � 3 p, q oc-q 27, 2014, 4:08 PM 26, 2014, 4:26 PM c 29, 2014, 4:04 PM 1� e 27, 2014, 3:32 PM',: .�.4}► `fit . C V Deck Dec 29, 2014, 4:04 PM vvv�UPZTT INJO P 7o�;i C IF Ragghianti Freitas LLP Riley F. Hurd III rhurd@rflawllp.com January 14, 2015 Via E -Mail Only (dzontrous@toznnojNburon.org) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 2312 Spanish Trail - File No. 21426 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawllp.com Our office continues to represent Jennifer Dunbar in connection with the above - referenced application. Ms. Dunbar is the owner of the home at 2356 Spanish Trail ("Dunbar Property"), which is directly to the East of the proposed project. Hopefully, the DRB has had the opportunity to read Ms. Dunbar s letter of January 12th, which very clearly sets forth the significant remaining design issues with the proposed project, and also proposes resolutions for these issues. It appears the remaining issues are primarily the result of 2 main issues: 1) continuing to seek a max -FAR house on a lot that doesn't support it, and 2) proposing very large deck spaces at the expense of the view and privacy corridors from the Dunbar residence. We again asked to speak with the applicants before resubmittal of any plans, this request was again denied. The primary purpose of this letter is to address a singular legal issue involved in the consideration of this project, and that is the variance being requested to encroach into the sideyard setback toward the Dunbar residence. The required legal findings for this variance cannot be made. Furthermore, analyzing the setback issues has been a moving target, as the existin project data has been changing from submittal to submittal. The applicant should be asked to clarify the current distance of the existing structure from the property line, as their first submittal indicated the existin right sideyard setback was 6' 2" and left was 4' 5". The latest proposal, however, states that the existing right sideyard setback is 5'10" and the left is 5'8". These are significant discrepancies given the location of the house and need to be resolved in advance of any meaningful consideration of the variance issue. EXHIBIT NO. -t R 6 or l I \F Ragghianti lFreitaS LLP January 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Variances The findings for a sideyard setback variance as set forth in Code section 16-52.030(E) cannot be made. Staff's proposed findings ignore crucial parts of the finding language and/or site conditions and impacts. The findings, staff's proposal, and our response, are set forth below: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this zoning ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; a. STAFF'S RESPONSE: "The subject property has an unusual shape and is very narrow at the location of the existing structure on the site, resulting in existing nonconforming side yard and front yard setbacks. These are special circumstances applicable to the property." b. COMMENT: Staff's response ignores a critical portion of this finding that, without the variance, the applicant would be "deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity." The proposed max -FAR house is significantly larger than most homes in the neighborhood. This is a privilege well beyond those enjoyed by "other properties in the vicinity," and not one that warrants a variance. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; a. STAFF'S RESPONSE: Numerous other homes in the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood have nonconforming setbacks or have been granted variances for reduced setbacks. b. COMMENT: We assume this to be true. 3. The strict application of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of EXHIBIT N0. � P. �r cl \F Ragghianti Freitas I.I.P January 14, 2015 Page 3 of 4 the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance; and a. STAFF'S RESPONSE: "Currently, the existing structure is located within both side yard setbacks and the front yard setback. The Design Review Board has- often determined that it would be an unnecessary physical hardship to require additions to such structures to have to step in to comply with the required side yard setbacks instead of following the alignment of the existing building. The location of the proposed additions further into the required front yard setback is necessary due to the practical difficulty caused by additions to the rear of the building which would intrude into views for neighboring residences." b. COMMENT: Again, a rather major portion of this required finding is ignored. The prior owners of the applicants property created the supposed hardship (i.e. building in the setbacks), this is the very definition of a self-created hardship. It is actually not that difficult to respect, at least, the sideyard setbacks in creating this addition. This respect is critical here given the orientation and location of surrounding properties. If . any interplay between two homes mandated at least minimum setback adherence, this is it. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. a. STAFF RESPONSE: "As noted above, the revised project design would reduce the visible mass of the building when viewed from the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail when compared to the original project design. The reduced size of the first floor deck should limit any potential privacy issues from the project. As a result, the project would not appear to be injurious to other properties in the vicinity." b. COMMENT: Fust and foremost, comparisons to the original design of this remodel really have no place in the discussion. The original design was objectively unprovable and rather insulting. As noted in the January 12th letter from Ms. Dunbar, the current design is still incredibly injurious to the Dunbar Property in the form of privacy impacts, and obstruction of air and light. EXIHIBIT NO.�� {? [aoF1f \F Ragghianti I Freitas LLP January 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4 At least 3 of the conjunctive findings for a variance cannot be made and this should come as no surprise to the applicants. The minutes from the previous DRB consideration of this matter contain the following quotes: BOARDMEMBER KRICENSKY: "He said that setback variances are often granted for utilizing existing foundations, but this project would involve new construction beyond the existing footprint and he cannot support the variance request for that reason." CHAIR COUSINS: "He could not support the variances..." Any new improvements should be required to conform with the Town's Code. The variance issues addressed herein, and the significant impacts identified in Ms. Dunbar's letter, suggest that the applicants need to take yet another look at the design of this project. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. CC: Jennifer Dunbar Very Truly Yours, A�.I Riley F. Hurd III EXHIBIT NO. I P, b CP// TOWN COUNCIL POLICY 95-01 PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, OR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL An appeal form, along with the required filing fee, must be filed with the Town Clerk not more than 10 calendar days following the decision being appealed. If the final day to appeal files on a Town -recognized holiday or a day when Town Hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. 2. If the applicant files the appeal, a filing fee deposit of $500.00 is required. Any remainder will be refunded; additional staff time or costs to process the appeal will be billed per the Town's hourly rate schedule or at cost. If the appellant is not the applicant, then a flat $300.00 filing fee is required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically the reasons why the decision is not in accord with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or other applicable regulations, or the reasons it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion such that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. As a general rule, all issues upon which an appeal is based must have been raised prior to the decision being appealed. 4. All grounds on which the appeal is based must be stated in the appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Issues raised at a later time which were not raised in the appeal form need not be addressed by Staff nor considered by the Town Council in making a decision on the appeal. 5. The Town Staff will notify the appellant and applicant of the Council hearing date as soon as it is determined. Requests for postponement of an appeal hearing are not usually granted unless by mutual agreement of applicant and appellant (see attached Resolution for further details). 6. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant and appellant is the same person, paragraph (c) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff will make a brief presentation (10 minutes maximum) of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation (20 minutes maximum) and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the 20 minutes between various speakers or have one speaker use all 20 minutes, so long as the time limit is observed. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation (20 minutes maximum) and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the 20 minutes between various speakers or have one speaker use all 20 minutes, so long as the time limit is observed. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item (maximum three (3) minutes). A speaker representing multiple persons (homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) will be granted a five (5) minute speaking time. Appellant is entitled to a five (5) minute rebuttal of any comments previously made at the hearing. (e) 7. The public portion of the item is closed and the item returned for deliberation by the Town Council. There will be no more public input accepted unless specifically requested by the Town Council. 8. The Town Council will make a decision on the appeal or continue discussion to a specified date. Following a decision by the Town Council, Staff will return with an appropriate resolution at the next meeting. EXHIBIT NO. Z. .Town ofTiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • I? 415.435.7373 F. 4] 5.435 2438 • wwwci.riburon.ca.us NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION On January 15, 2015, the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following 'action: Granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and side yard setback, located at 2312 Spanish Trail (File #21426). (} Approved as submitted (X) Approved with conditions () Denied as submitted Continued to Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your records: Approved plans Appeal provisions of the Town Revised conditions of approval No attachments Other - Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following the meeting, and will be provided upon request. After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain a Building Permit from the Tiburon Building Division for your project. Information on Building Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Division at (415) 435-7380. For additional information regarding this application, please call me at (415) 435- 7393. Sincerely, Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager EXHIBIT ATO. 3 P. Loy Frank X. Doyle Mayor Erin. Tollirii Ce .Mayor Jim Fraser Couricilmeniber A1iae :Fredericks Coundilriie fiber Emmett •O'Donnell Couneilmember Margaret,:A.:Curran Town;Manager Design Review Board Meeting _January 15. 20L5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2312 SPANISH TRAIL FILE #21426 (AS AMENDED AT THE JANUARY 15, 2015 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING) 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. Construction shall conform with the application and plans dated by the Town of Tiburon on September 30, 2014, or as amended by these conditions of approval and plans of January 5, 2015. Any modifications to the plans must receive Design Review approval. 3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawings, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating whether these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require additional Design Review approval. All such changes that have not been explicitly approved by the Town are not "deemed approved" if not highlighted and listed on construction drawings. Construction of any such unapproved project elements is in violation of permit approvals and shall be subject to Stop Work Orders and removal. 4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 5. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down -light -type fixtures. 7. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 8. A construction sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather -resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact TOWN OF TIBURON `XHIBIT NO. 3PAGE 5 OF 7 P. 2c4 Design Review Board N4eering January 15. 2015 (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall be posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 9. The project shall comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The Tiburon Fire Protection District recommends the following conditions of approval: a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10 c. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2 10. All requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met. 11. The applicants shall obtain any necessary sewer permits from Sanitary District No. 5 and pay all applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main. After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection for conformance to standards. 12. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans: a. Encroachments within the Town street right-of-way, such as driveway approaches, sidewalks, small drainage facilities and short -height landscaping, need to be processed through a standard Public Works encroachment permit application with plans or schematics for review. b. Any other proposal that would encroach into the public right-of-way is not permitted, including fences, retaining walls and other permanent improvements. An encroachment permit shall be filed and issued with the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department, for all work to be conducted within Town right-of-way, or Town -owned land, as defined in Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. c. The public right-of-way shall be protected from damage during construction, or repairs shall be made to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Public Works Department. 13. The south wall of the first floor great room and the adjacent deck shall be pulled back four feet (4'). TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIIBIT NO. 3 PAGE 6 OF 7 Design Review Board :Meeting 'January 15. -'Ob 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for this project, a more detailed landscape plan shall be approved by Planning Division staff. This plan shall incorporate appropriate landscaping to provide privacy protection for neighboring property owners to the satisfaction of Planning Division staff. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE7OF7 EXHIBIT NO. ;--AZ/5"e TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 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) o Design Review (Staff Level) • Variance(s) # s Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Permit L.: SEi' 3 f 2014 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 REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 25/& p ,� 171 l Rd PROPERTY SIZE: //, Z717 PARCEL NUMBER: 0 19 r'- 2 ZONING: PROPERTY OWNER: r/�'R M r /7%21C r 6 1'. -L/ f' •� MAILING ADDRESS: 4- 0/ /.ra,rr Toa t KM • qd-7” PHONE/FAX f ITMB R: (6-5-• 7_6¢ / E-MAIL: h yr to r Wei-, 6 e ►Cry s APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ GINEER % ( I ._ PHONE/FAX NUMBER: MAILING ADDRESS: /zy 95J71 �.LC E-MAIL: - , pA (hryd i yi 1.LC,,a Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. B EF DESC PTION F PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if need,ed): Obi r e -LJ 'C, lit f d Y-e71f�C3l 5 1, C�Ucr� 4>r1Sl - l fi 6XIIIBIT NO. 4 I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, 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 10 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. ;j Signature: * Date: - ���� ii i O / Theproperty�idvolvthhiCpermit request may be su 'e1/5 toe res tf ons calle+�o ��ants`Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which may restrict the property use and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tibui n. Consequently, development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when gran ing 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. dure will minimi Following this pro -=Signature: *If other than owner, must ave an a,')1horization letter o owner o cdence + + e ac o trot of the property or premises for purposes off ling this application the potential for disagreement among neighbors and possible litigation. • /`4� :Dater 'L, 301 2.0 " Lt° • NOTICE TO ' LICANTS 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 Community Development Department Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-7390 (Tel) (415) 435-2438(I+ax) www•.townoftibu ron.nrg DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION 2455 Application No.: '2 L 2/p GP Designation: Fee Deposit: - Date Received: ctizottt{ Received By: - Dc_. t #: l37 3°C Date Deemed Complete: iU (jtq By: Acting Body: Action: Date: Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance # EXHIBIT NO. --. 2y 1 I_ '-. .• ?014 'l DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): 1. Briefly describe the proposed project: U r, �,= —sa G a- / -‘k lei ;.7V L e. 25 ate: ar Eo o.= -r he 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L)): 11 ) I 3. Square footage of Landscape Area: 4. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing f5 i gx t c_. 2_ f Y Proposed ' ` r' ' I 5. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas. r r :" 4.4.-T C trj e Yards (Setbacks from property line)( (Section 16-100.020(Y)* Front BE' COMPLETED".BYE APPLICANT :EXISTING . ;PROPOSED° ADDITION AND/OR••ALTERATION 0`L Ic2l• ' ft. + :PROPOSED 3._( ! 1 ft. STAFF.! ON ft. ft. Rear 10'7 ft. ,_ ! lc`_ „ ft ft. ft. Right Side EL 16,i1 ft. ft. S '•— 1 v" ft. ft ft. Left Side S'- '11Gft. ft. 5'- 2 - ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height (Section 16-30.050)* - C.1 1 ft. ft 6" ft. ft. ft. Lot Coverage (Section 16-30.120(B))* 1512.- sq.ft 312sq.ft. 41-4- sq.ft 225 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area 4- 5' 1c, / % °/0 Gross Floor Area (Section 16-100.020(F))* Z.101 sq.ft. 1 2O sq.ft. 3121 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16 (Zoning) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION - MAJOR ADDITIOIN REV 040014 EXHIBIT NO. � FA II� [J[.L. , � i r'3 3 '7014I � '7014I , - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (415)-435-7390 www.ci. tib u ron. ca. u APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards woulc result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships mus. be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 16.52.030 of Chapter 1E (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. WHAT VARIANCES) ARE YOU -REQUESTING? This Magnitude Zoning Existing Application Of Variance Condition Requirement Condition Proposes Requested Front Yard Setback I — �� �✓'— 1' t i Rear Yard Setback. Left Side Yard Setback 5 r1z: ~ '4 ' 2.k... 3 'r Right Side Yard Setback 2 51- 1:0:# = �" t �!� ,r '! Lot Coverage Height Parcel Area Per Dwelling Unit Usable Open Space Parking Expansion of Nonconformity L ' c a lc? :.��,� -.�,? �� r ��. n- '�s'G t.:- S Other (Please describe); ` -„ E �� t -'u-5 4 46,4,,t_.i• -� .G �� 'E 'F 4°--,4,5-`Y/ 02 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON REC 1012013 Page 1 EXHIBIT NO. t-4 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting November 6, 2014 Agenda Item: 4 STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Members of the Design Review Board PIanning Manager Watrous 2312 Spanish Trail; File No. 21426; 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 PROJECT DATA OWNER: APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: MALCOLM AND BONNIE WITTENBERG H.R. KEY DESIGN 2312 SPANISH TRAIL 059-201-32 21426 11,278 SQUARE FEET R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) X OCTOBER 15, 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 15301. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. Currently the property is unproved with a three-story two-family dwelling, along with a detached garage in the rear of the property facing Vista Del Mar Lane, and a detached shed within the Town right-of-way along Spanish Trail. The existing two-family dwelling includes one dwelling on the main and upper floors, containing three bedrooms, a living room/dining room, kitchen, and two bathrooms. The second dwelling unit on the lower floor contains one bedroom and one bathroom. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. r PAGE 1 OF 10 ��,i.. �DeSign Review Board •i�erin, !vovur ber 6, 2014 The proposal would expand the living area for both dwelling units by adding to the sides and rear of the building. The additions would expand the living room and second bedroom on the main level, expand the master bedroom suite on the upper level, and add a second bedroom and bathroom to the dwelling unit on the lower level. The existing detached garage would be expanded from its current substandard depth of 15 feet, 8 inches to a new depth of 18 feet, 6 inches. An existing parking pad to the side of the garage would be expanded and paved. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage to 3,219 square feet (28.5%) which is less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%). The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,848 square feet which would be 720 square feet above the maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, the applicant has requested a floor area exception. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of the structure, which is situated within 6 feet of both side property lines. As an 8 foot side yard setback is required in the R-2 zone, variances are requested for reduced side yard setbacks. Colors and materials for the project include wood shingle siding with stone, white and grey trim and grey shake shingle roofing. A color/materials board will be available at the meeting for review by the board. BACKGROUND In 2010, a previous property owner submitted an application (File #21017) to construct a new detached two-family dwelling and two parking structures, with a detached two-family dwelling exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback, on the subject property. The Design Review Board reviewed the application at the July 15, October 7 and November 4, 2010 meetings before approving the application on December 2, 2010. The neighboring residents at 2310 Spanish Trail, 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane, 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane, 2370 Vista Del Mar Lane, 2343 Paradise Drive and 2400 Vista Del Mar Lane subsequently filed an appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council. On February 6, 2011, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 06-2011 granting the appeal and denying the application for the new detached two-family dwelling. The Council determined that the detached second dwelling unit would have been inconsistent with the development pattern of attached two-family dwellings and single-family dwellings on individual lots that prevails in the vicinity and was contrary to the intent of the detached two-family dwelling exception process. The Council also found that the application had not convincingly demonstrated that it had met several of the required criteria for approval of a detached two-family dwelling exception established by Section 16-40.020 (F) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The subject application would expand an existing attached two-family dwelling. As a result, a detached two-family dwelling exception is not required for this application. ANALYSIS The proposed additions would substantially expand the existing building toward the rear. The lower floor would extend an additional 24 feet toward the rear and the main floor would be TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO._. PAGE 2OF10 Design Revievi 13cn1rcl Meeting November 6, 2014 extended by 18 feet. By following the alignment of the existing structure, the visible mass of the sides of the building would be greatly increased. In particular, the surface area of the western elevation of the structure would substantially increase. The existing structure is situated within 6 feet of both side property lines. The neighboring home to the west at 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane is situated further to the south and would be screened from view of the proposed additions by substantial existing vegetation along the shared side property line. However, a large portion of the adjacent residence to the east at 2356 Spanish Trail is situated directly opposite the proposed additions. The proposed 6 foot setback for the proposed additions, combined with the sizeable amount of surface area on the proposed eastern elevation, would dramatically increase the visual mass and bulk of the subject structure when viewed from this neighboring home. In addition, existing vegetation that currently provides a visual buffer between the properties would be removed as part of the project. As a result, the new windows along the eastern side of the proposed additions could also create possible privacy impacts for the adjacent residence. The owners of the property at 2356 Spanish Trail have submitted a letter raising concerns about possible view impacts that could be caused by the proposed additions. These additions would also be visible from a home to the northeast and uphill from the site at 2375 Spanish Trail. The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines should be used in evaluating the potential view impacts from these neighboring homes: Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection if 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 additions would intrude into the views from the kitchen and a bedroom from the home at 2356 Spanish Trail and from the deck and other primary living areas of the home at 2375 Spanish Trail. -0 • Pr2oPo6air "5'f2:::2- u12E- 1 • y�s��rao/ /7� /�/` 1-12a-TL:L�. J CA \ �ti��W - fj:. �G.+K' 64•j J0.1.1V\ ,- 7- • , \-) •'-2-T.PI?:6- OL ! •ir ;L!: v ,b.:. OH TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 7 PAGE 3 OF 10 Design Review Brarcl Meeting November 6, 20)4 Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of [the] view, then foreground, then middleground. If possible avoid cutting horizon line of a neighbor's view." The proposed addition would break the horizon line for the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail, but not for the home at 2375 Spanish Trail. L t) 1 1 r 1 • Jr 1 4. .1 —rte ! P) t. jci • `.3'•�`�4.,G 27.7-1; r- y r J 1 � , Goal 3, Principle 7 (C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "blockage of center of [the] view [are] more damaging than blockage of [the] side of [the] view." The proposed additions would intrude into the right side of the view from the kitchen and bedroom of the home at 2356 Spanish Trail and into the lower portion of the center of the view from the home at 2375 Spanish Trail. i -Jt v =,4. l I f I et4�i�Jn1'�t� ?IGL7,J�,JIJ ra-::-;Vi2� / S7� 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 additions would not intrude into the views of Angel Island, San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and Sausalito from the kitchen of the home at 2356 Spanish Trail, but would block views of the Golden Gate Bridge from the bedroom of that dwelling. The proposed additions would not block views of any important objects from the residence at 2375 Spanish Trail. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 4 OF 10 .-/ i._ / • 7 =f t Design Review board -sting November 5, 201 4 Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The homes at 2356 & 2375 Spanish Trail both have wide, panoramic views from Angel Island through San Francisco and Sausalito. The proposed additions would block a portion of the right side of the view from the home at 2356 Spanish Trail, but only a small portion of the larger views from the residence at 2375 Spanish Trail. � ( r l ..._._--• !r 5T L"� / 72 ...! ? /•� !! A !." -firr Although the potential view and visual impacts of the proposed project would be more pronounced from the home at 2356 Spanish Trail than the residence at 2375 Spanish Trail, any revisions to the project design that would benefit the dwelling at 2356 Spanish Trail would also lessen the potential view impacts from the residence at 2375 Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles from the homes at 2356 & 2375 Spanish Trail to evaluate any potential view or visual massing impacts from the project. Several neighboring residents have raised concerns about the lack of parking on the site for the two expanded dwelling units, particularly given the lack of available parking on the site at this time and the limited on -street parking available on both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar Lane. The proposed garage expansion at the rear of the property and expanded driveway area to its side would provide at least four off-street parking spaces for the subject property, substantially improving the parking situation for this property. There is an existing shed that is located within the Spanish Trail right-of-way beyond the front property line of the house. This shed has been at this location for many years and the Town is unsure whether this structure was built with the appropriate permits. The Town Public Works Department has not required that the shed be removed from the road right-of-way. Due to the height of the shed, this structure adds 254 square feet to the calculated floor area of the site. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 5 OF 10 Design RRevicw Board ,vii:cu ng Nci ember 6, 2014 Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R-2 zone with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced side yard setbacks and the floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. The subject property has an unusual shape and is very narrow at the location of the existing structure on the site, resulting in existing nonconforming side yard setbacks. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Numerous other homes in the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood have nonconforming side yards or have been granted variances for reduced side yard setbacks. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered ,among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. Currently, the existing structure is located within both side yard setbacks. The Design Review Board has often determined that it would be an unnecessary physical hardship to require additions to such structures to have to step in to comply with the required setbacks instead of following the alignment of the existing building. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. As noted above, the sizeable increase in surface area along the eastern side of the building within the required side yard setback would result in a substantial increase in the visual mass and bulk of the house when viewed from the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The reduced side yard setback on the western side of the lot would not result in visual or other impacts for the neighboring home to the west. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 6 - PAGE 6 OF 10 nesigri RevicN1' Guard \•leering 1<<w niter 6, 2014 In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16-52.020(I [4]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood contains a variety of structures, many of which are large and have two or more stories. However, most major additions and new homes approved by the Design Review Board in this neighborhood in recent years have been more visually articulated than the design of the proposed additions, particularly on the eastern side of the building. The proposed eastern face of the structure would create a substantially increased visual mass when viewed from the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail and would not appear to be compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. The proposed additions would generally follow the contours of the downhill slope of the subject property. However, the additions on the eastern side of the house would result in a much greater building heights along that side of the structure, which would be less compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. From the evidence provided, staff believes there is insufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances or floor area exception. It appears that the additions to the western side of the structure would not impact other homes in the vicinity and the reduced side yard setback on that side of the property could be acceptable. However, the eastern side of the additions would unnecessarily impact the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board give direction to the applicants to reduce the total floor area of the proposed additions to more comply with the floor area ratio for the property and to lessen the potential impacts of the project on the residence at 2356 Spanish Trail. Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application. RECOMMENDATION 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 Design Review Board agrees with Staff s conclusions, it is recommended that the application be continued to a future meeting, with direction given to the applicants to address the issues noted above. If the Design Review Board can make the findings for the requested variances and floor area exception and wishes to approve the application, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 7 OF 10 Design Review Board Mt Bring Novemnb.r 6, 2O '4 EXHIBITS: 1. Draft Conditions of Approval 2. Application and Supplemental Materials 3. Letter from Richard Wodehouse, dated October 28, 2014 4. Submitted Plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE SOFyO TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting December 18, 2014 Agenda Item: 1 STAFF REPORT To: From: Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail; File No. 21426; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Two -Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks (Continued from November 6, 2014) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. This application was first reviewed at the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property raised concerns about the mass and size of the proposed project compared to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood and potential view impacts on the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board shared these concerns and concluded that the size of the project was too large for the neighborhood and that the visual mass of the proposed project was unacceptable. The Board also indicated that it could not support the requested variances or floor area exception. The application was continued to the December 4, 2014 Board meeting. The applicant subsequently indicated that a new architect had been hired for the project and requested a further continuance to the December 18 meeting. Revised plans for the project have now been submitted by the new architect for the project. Much of the proposed added space has been relocated from the rear of the building to the front. On the first floor, the kitchen and third bedroom would be expanded toward the front and the great room and second bedroom would be expanded toward the rear. A bathroom and closet addition would be added toward the front of the second floor. The basement floor would now include a living and dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms and one bathroom. Decks would be added to the rear of the first and second floors. The existing detached garage would be remodeled in the same manner as the previous design, expanding from its current substandard depth of 15 feet, 8 inches to a new depth of 18 feet, 6 inches. The previously proposed expansion to the existing parking pad to the side of the garage has been eliminated. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 1 OF 5 Design Revive 1.crtrd ering December 18, 4 The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage to 2,308 square feet (20.5%), which 911 square feet less than the 3,219 square foot lot coverage of the previous design and less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%). The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,128 square feet, 720 square feet less than the 3,848 square feet proposed under the previous project design and the maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, a floor area exception is no longer requested. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of the structure, which is situated within the side yard setback of both side property lines. The additions would extend to within 6 feet, 2 inches of the left (east) side property line and to within 5 feet, 3 inches of the right (west) side property line. Additions would also encroach to within 3 feet, 2 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 15 minimum front yard setback required in the R-2 zone. Variances are therefore requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks. However, the notices for this application requested variances for 6 side yard setbacks and did not include a request for reduced front yard setback. Therefore, no final action can be taken on this application until the appropriate notices have been given for the requested variances. Colors and materials for the project have been modified to include stucco siding with wood trim and grey shingle roofing. A color/materials board will be available at the meeting for review by the board. ANALYSIS The revised project design appears to be consistent with the direction given by the Design Review Board at the November 6, 2014 meeting. The size of the structure has been considerably reduced and much of the new building mass has been moved from the side and rear of the house to the front, where it would be less noticeable from the adjacent homes to the sides and below the site. Many of the changes would lessen the impact of the proposed additions on the adjacent home to the east at 2356 Spanish Trail. The only proposed second floor additions would be situated at the front of the building, much further from the neighboring dwelling than the previously proposed second floor additions. The revised design would include substantial new decks at the rear of the structure, but would substantially reduce the additions to the rear that would have been in the viewlines of the adjacent residence. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles from the homes at 2356 & 2375 Spanish Trail and any other surrounding residences to evaluate any potential view or visual massing impacts from the revised project design. The project proposed to utilize a stucco exterior, similar to that of the existing building, rather than the wood shingle siding proposed by the previous project design. The Design Review Board should determine whether the revised exterior colors and materials are appropriate for the proposed project at this location. The continuation of the proposed garage expansion at the rear of the property would help address some of the neighborhood concerns about the parking situation on Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar Lane. The applicant's architect has indicated that they have investigated the possibility of placing an off-street parking structure in the front of the site, with access from Spanish Trail, and TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 5 EXHIBIT N4- Design Review Board Meeting December .18, 2014 have found this to be infeasible. The Design Review Board should evaluate whether additional off-street parking should be provided as part of this project. The previous staff report addressed the issue of whether the existing shed located within the Spanish Trail right-of-way beyond the front property line of the house counted toward the calculated floor area ratio for this property. The previous project designer indicated at the November 6, 2014 meeting that the shed has substandard ceiling heights. As a result, the shed will not count toward the FAR of this lot. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R-2 zone with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced front side yard setbacks. However, as noted above, the appropriate notices have not been sent for the requested variances. Therefore, no action can be taken on the requested variances and at this time and the Design Review Board should refrain from discussing the merits of the specific variance requests. Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application since the November 6, 2014 meeting. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and provide input on the overall merits of the revised project design without commenting on the merits of the requested variances. The Board should then continue the application to the January 15, 2015 Design Review Board meeting. EXHIBITS: 1. Draft Conditions of Approval 2. Revised application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board staff report dated November 6, 2014 4. Minutes of the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting 5. Submitted Plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 5 EXHIBIT N0. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting January 15, 2015 Agenda Item:1 STAFF REPORT To: From: Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail; File No. 21426; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Two -Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks (Continued from December 18, 2014) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. This application was first reviewed at the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property raised concerns about the mass and size of the proposed project compared to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood and potential view impacts on the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board shared these concerns and concluded that the size of the project was too large for the neighborhood and that the visual mass of the proposed project was unacceptable. The Board also indicated that it could not support the requested variances or floor area exception. The application was continued to the December 4, 2014 Board meeting. The applicant subsequently indicated that a new architect had been hired for the project and requested a further continuance to the December 18 meeting. Revised plans were submitted by the new architect prior to the December 18 meeting. However, the revised plans included a modified request for a side yard setback variance and a new request for a reduced front yard setback variance that had not been properly noticed for that meeting. As a result, the application was continued to the January 15, 2015 meeting. At the December 18, 2014 meeting, the Board took testimony from neighboring residents and commented on the revised project plans. The neighbors at 2356 Spanish Trail stated that the revised project would still result in view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for their home. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that the revised project design was a significant improvement and moved the project in the right direction. The Board felt that the rear decks were too larger, particularly off the second bedroom, and should be reduced in size. The Board then continued the application to the January 15, 2015 meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT PAGE 1 OF 7 Design Review Board Nitctiny January 15. 2O.5 Revised plans have now been submitted. The area of the first floor deck has been reduced in front of the second bedroom, with a 4 foot, 8 inch deep deck now proposed in front of the bedroom and connecting to the larger deck attached to the adjacent great room. The roof has been hipped on both sides on the upper level to pull portions of the roofline further from the sides. Several of the proposed windows on both sides of the house have been modified, including a larger window on the east side of the second story bedroom and larger windows on the west side of the first floor. The floor area of the basement has been reduced by 7 square feet. A revised color and materials board has been submitted, indicating that the exterior of the building would be finished in gray colored stucco with white trim and light brown wood shingles would be installed on the roof. The revisions would increase the lot coverage of the project to 2,256 square feet (20.1%), which would be 52 square feet less than the previous design, 963 square feet less than the 3,219 square foot lot coverage of the original design and less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%). The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,121 square feet, 727 square feet less than the 3,848 square feet proposed under the previous project design and the maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, a floor area exception is no longer requested. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of the structure, which is situated within the side yard setback of both side property lines. The revised plans indicate that the additions would extend to within 5 feet, 8 inches of the left (east) side property line and to within 5 feet, 10 inches of the right (west) side property line. Additions would also encroach to within 3 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 15 minimum front yard setback required in the R-2 zone. Variances are therefore requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks. ANALYSIS The revised project design appears to be generally consistent with the direction given by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2014 meeting. The size of the first floor deck has been reduced on the east side of the house. The Board should determine whether this reduction substantially addresses the privacy concerns raised at the previous meeting. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles from the homes at 2356 & 2375 Spanish Trail and any other surrounding residences to evaluate any potential view or visual massing impacts from the revised project design. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R-2 zone with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks. In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 2 OF 7 .lac.; ign Reviev' Board Mect:ir:, January 15. 2015 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. The subject property has an unusual shape and is very narrow at the location of the existing structure on the site, resulting in existing nonconforming side yard and front yard setbacks. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Numerous other homes in the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood have nonconforming setbacks or have been granted variances for reduced setbacks. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. Currently, the existing structure is located within both side yard setbacks and the front yard setback. The Design Review Board has often determined that it would be an unnecessary physical hardship to require additions to such structures to have to step in to comply with the required side yard setbacks instead of following the alignment of the existing building. The location of the proposed additions further into the required front yard setback is necessary due to the practical difficulty caused by additions to the rear of the building which would intrude into views for neighboring residences. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. As noted above, the revised project design would pull reduce the visible mass of the building when viewed from the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail when compared to the original project design. The reduced size of the first floor deck should limit any potential privacy issues from the project. As a result, the project would not appear to be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. From the evidence provided, staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances. Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application since the December 18, 2014 meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 7 PAGE 3 OF 7 Design Review [ oard Meeting _January 15. 2015 RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and provide input on the overall merits of the revised project design without commenting on the merits of the requested variances. The Board should then continue the application to the January 15, 2015 Design Review Board meeting. EXHIBITS: 1. Draft Conditions of Approval 2. Revised application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board staff report dated November 6, 2014 4. Design Review Board staff report dated December 18, 2014 5. Minutes of the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting 6. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. e7 PAGE 4 OF 7 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 corner. 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 Derpseys' 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 corner 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 comer 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 corner 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. e, 6 The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. Currently the property is improved with a three-story two-family dwelling, along with a detached garage in the rear of the property facing Vista Del Mar Lane, and a detached shed within the Town right-of-way along Spanish Trail. The proposal would expand the living area for both dwelling units by adding to the sides and rear of the building. The additions would expand the living room and second bedroom on the main level, expand the master bedroom suite on the upper level, and add a second bedroom and bathroom to the dwelling unit on the lower level. The existing detached garage would be expanded from its current substandard depth of 15 feet, 8 inches to a new depth of 18 feet, 6 inches. An existing parking pad to the side of the garage would be expanded and paved. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage to 3,219 square feet (28.5%) which is less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%). The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,848 square feet which would be 720 square feet above the maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, the applicant has requested a floor area exception. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of the structure, which is situated within 6 feet of both side property lines. As an 8 foot side yard setback is required in the R-2 zone, variances are requested for reduced side yard setbacks. The public hearing was opened. Ralph Key, designer, said that the proposal was designed to improve a 100 -year old house and great care was taken in developing a design in consideration to the immediate neighbors and also the neighborhood at large. He said that they decided on an addition that would preserve as much of the existing footprint as possible in order to respect the neighborhood. He said that they could not construct an addition without extensive excavation to the north, so they decided to construct the addition downhill, stepping down the slope on the side. He said that the additions would follow the existing setback of the house. He said that the project would be aesthetically pleasing when viewed from Vista Del Mar Lane, rather than the eyesore that currently exists. He said that the project would provide off-street parking in response to the concerns of the neighbors. He said that the floor area exception of 466 square feet was consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. He said that the exception of 720 square feet mentioned in the staff report includes the storage shed that is uninhabitable because of the ceiling height and should not be included, so he requested that the shed area be removed from the FAR calculations. He said that the applicants offered to meet with neighbors and made every attempt to respect neighbors' needs. He stated that the vegetation screening would go far to screen the neighboring houses and stated that the owners have no intentions to remove any screening. Malcolm Wittenberg, owner, said that he went to neighbors' homes and he had some issues regarding the staff report which stated that the project would somewhat block views from neighbor's kitchens. He stated that he visited the neighbor at 2356 Spanish Trail and was able to take photos from inside that home. He presented those photos, which were taken from the kitchen, and stated that the project would have no impact on those views, with the worst case scenario showing the story poles off to the right with no blockage of any water views. He disagreed with the comment in the staff report regarding existing shrubbery acting as a buffer TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 1 1 /6/14 EXHIBIT NO. e 7 between the properties that would be removed, saying that he had no intention to remove that shrubbery and was willing to work with the neighbor to add to that shrubbery to accomplish the goal of additional screening. He stated that the shed is not tall enough to be considered a structure and is unheated, and he therefore felt that it should not be counted toward the floor area ratio, adding that it was not counted as part of a previous design review application on this property by the previous owner. Mr. Wittenberg stated that they were cognizant of neighbors when they designed the project and did everything possible to respect their view corridors. He said that the only portion of their neighbor's view that would be at all impacted is a bedroom. He shared three photos from the bedroom window with the Board, as well as a Google map image of the terrain. He noted that the house at 2356 Spanish Trail was built about 50 years after his own, and instead of building it up the hill and angling is directly towards the bay, it was built as close as possible to his residence and then angled to look directly over his property, with a corner of the roof actually extending over the property line. He stated that the distance between the closest corner of that house to his own is six feet. He said that due to this proximity, any addition to his own house creates a situation making it almost impossible to avoid any impact on the neighboring property. He said that they followed the contour of the hill and notched the addition to respect the view corridor of the neighboring house. Boardmember Kricensky asked if the story poles were installed to the height of the finished floor level or to the top of the railing. Mr. Key said that they represent the fmished floor level. Chair Cousins asked if there was any justification or reason for the floor area exception other than the dispute regarding the shed. Mr. Key responded that the project was designed to meet the current needs of his client to have the additional floor area for both their own living situation and for the second unit. Mr. Wittenberg said that they purchased the house with the idea that it would be remodeled because it is substandard, including a circular stairway in the middle of the family room blocking the view area. Boardmember Kricensky asked if the shed was included in the FAR. Planning Manager Watrous stated that it was included in the FAR because staff was not aware that the ceiling height was that low. if the ceiling height is less than 7 feet then it would not be included in the FAR. Boardmember Tollini asked who owns the land that the shed is built upon. Mr. Wittenberg said that the Town of Tiburon owns that strip of land and stated that that was one of the reasons they could not expand in that direction. Riley Hurd, representing Mr. Wodehouse and Ms. Dunbar, said that this project was the opposite of the previous project. He believed that the applicant missed the main issues, as although views are a concern, the main issues are bulk, mass, a gigantic wall, too big of a house, and too close of a house. He said that sunlight and the privacy would be obliterated by a gigantic wall. He said that the owners are planning to step the construction down the hill rather than excavate. He said that this is a lot that should not be near the maximum floor area and should not have an exception. He said that the intersection of the two lots is unique, but both of the homeowners were aware of that when they purchased the homes. He did not believe that the variance findings TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 EXHIBIT NO. B8 11/6/14 could be made and if the variance was granted there would be a negative impact on the neighboring home that would be made worse because of the proximity of the two houses. Arlene Schneidewind stated that she lives above the property and contacted Michael Heckman, architect, because the story poles were not in the correct position. She referred to their letter and stated that they are concerned about the size of the house. She said that there are other big houses on the street but they are more subtle and lower. She was also concerned that they would be looking down on all of the decks. She stated that this is a dark part of the neighborhood and putting windows on that side of the house would allow a lot of light impact on her living room, dining room, and bedroom on that side of her house. Paul Mussche said that they see the story poles from their two bedrooms. He spoke of the detached shed in the Town right-of-way and said that as they come down the driveway there is a recess for a car to be parked that could make access difficult when the car is not parked close enough to the fence. He asked for clarification of what it means that the shed is in the Town's right-of-way. Planning Manager Watrous clarified the shed is in the Town's right-of-way but it is not in the roadway, so it does not interfere with any cars driving back and forth. He said that it is very unusual to see a shed in such a location but it has been in that location for many years since before the current owners purchased the property. Jennifer Dunbar said that they are the next door neighbors to the east. She stated that the proposed additions would severely impact her home. She said that the story poles show that the additions would block sunlight and primary views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the bay. She said that the sheer size and volume of the addition and roof pitch would shadow her kitchen, deck, and bedroom. She said that she hears the neighbors now having dinner on the patio, and the houses are so close she can hear their conversations word for word. She said that the three proposed decks would be right in their view line. She said that she was concerned about patio furniture, activity, and nighttime lighting which would affect their privacy and views. She asked the DRB to help curtail this project and requested that her privacy and enjoyment of her home not be taken away. Sue Zimmerman said she lives just below the subject property and said that while she had no view concerns she was concerned about the bulk, mass, and sheer size of the project. She said that the house would be gorgeous but just too large. She said that looking uphill at the house it would look almost a five -story building. She stated that the previous plans for the property showed the height of the building at 34.2 feet and she requested looking into the correct height, it would then require a height variance. She said that the house would go straight up vertically and be very large at the top, which would make it appear more massive. She requested that the magnolia tree that currently screens the lower two floors be preserved. She stated that the existing garage is very minimally used because of the long distance and suggested a Spanish Trail location for more convenient parking. Mr. Key said that they measured the height from the existing grade of the patio and it was 29 feet 6 inches. He said that a five -story facade would only occur if one viewed the project in one dimension. He said that the second level would actually be stepped back from the lower level and would therefore not appear to be a monolith, with the top level recessed a further 18 feet. He TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 11/6/14 9 EXHIBIT NO. said that they met with staff about the parking situation and were told that any parking constructed in the right-of-way would be open to the public. He noted that the shed is below the height of the road by at least 11 feet. Boardmember Chong asked if any other design ideas were considered in the design process. Mr. Key stated that they explored building in other areas, but these could not be developed without going into the setback or extensive excavation, and he felt there is only one way to go to be consistent with the hillside guidelines. He noted that the neighbor to the left was just given a variance for a project to lessen its impact. He compared the floor area exception request with other houses in the area and showed that it is in scale with the neighborhood. Mr. Wittenberg said that this house is a little over 2,100 square feet and would be increased to 3,500 square feet and they are asking for a 466 square foot exception. He stated that Ms. Zimmerman's house on Vista Del Mar Lane is not directly below the project and is in fact very far from it. He said that the house would be larger because of the topography of the land. He said that one of the reasons the garage was not used in the past is because it is too short, and one of the reasons for their proposal was to increase its size so a car may actually be parked in it. He pointed out they are adding two additional parking spaces on the property itself to try to make the property more functional and relieve concerns about limited street parking. The public hearing was closed. Chair Cousins said that this is a very difficult site because of the juxtaposition of the houses, but this situation must be accepted and any design must take that into account. He did not believe that the design was an acceptable starting point and would have an enormous impact on the home at 2356 Spanish Trail. He stated that the reason variances are usually granted is to gain some other benefit, but in this instance the project would go three stories high immediately in front of another house and he believes that it is a non-starter. He could not support the variances or exception with the impact of the house in the proposed location. He suggested that the applicants needed to work harder to fit in the design with those of their neighbors. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Chair Cousins and said that there must have reasons for other floor area exceptions in the area, but he could not find any reasons for this particular request. He said that the impact on the neighbor's bedroom would be substantial and would put the room in a canyon with sun and light blocked by a three-story wall. He said that from the kitchen, views through the magnolia tree of the Golden Gate Bridge would be blocked by the 42 - inch deck railing. He felt that the three-story east wall would be too massive. He said that setback variances are often granted for utilizing existing foundations, but this project would involve new construction beyond the existing footprint and he cannot support the variance request for that reason. Boardmember Chong pointed out that the neighboring house would probably not be approved in today's environment and he believed that this was a good lesson. He agreed with Boardmember Kricensky that the neighboring bedroom would be put in a canyon by this construction. He said that the project would decimate the Golden Gate Bridge view from the bedroom and create the feeling of a corridor. He believed that there was a way to improve this home and gain additional EXHIBIT NO. 8 10 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 11/6/14 floor area without creating such an extremely tall building. He said that the design needed serious reworking. Chair Tollini said he really liked the design of the house, but he generally agreed with the other Boardmembers. He stated that the neighboring house at 2356 Spanish Trail is part of the existing neighborhood and puts a constraint on what can be done on this property. He said that expanding the house to anywhere close to the floor area ratio will be a challenge. He was unaware of any floor area exception given to such a large R-2 lot. He said that if the additions were within the existing footprint or expanded more on the lower level where the floor area would not be visible then that might be more acceptable, but the proposed floor area would be easy to see and very large. He acknowledged that the applicants will have a difficult time coming up with something that will work on the site and not have large impacts on the neighbors. He stated that the story poles should show the height of the railing. He reiterated that it will be a challenge for a project that will be close to the FAR for this site. Boardmember Chong said it would have to be a fairly dramatic redesign for the Board to consider approving the project. Vice -Chair Tollini said that he was surprised that the entire project still depends on parking at the lower location and walking to the main living area and was not being corrected to allow a garage on that side of the property. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the December 4, 2014 meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #15 OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2014 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Chong requested correcting the call to order to reflect that the meeting was opened by Chair Cousins. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2014 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4-0. F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 1 1 /6/14 EXHIBIT NO. 11 MINUTES #19 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2014 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Cousins. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Cousins, Vice Chair Tollini and Boardmember Kricensky Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Emberson Ex -Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous said that the item for 2340 Paradise Drive, which has been appealed to the Town Council, has been scheduled for the February 4, 2015 Town Council meeting and a member of the Design Review Board will need to attend. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 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. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. This application was first reviewed at the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property raised concerns about the mass and size of the proposed project compared to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood and potential view impacts on the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board shared these concerns and concluded that the size of the project was too large for the neighborhood and that the visual mass of the proposed project was unacceptable. The Board also indicated that it could not support the requested variances or floor area exception. The application was continued to the December 4, 2014 Board meeting. EXHIBIT NO. 9 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 12/18/14 1 Revised plans for the project have now been submitted by a new architect for the project. Much of the proposed added space has been relocated from the rear of the building to the front. On the first floor, the kitchen and third bedroom would be expanded toward the front and the great room and second bedroom would be expanded toward the rear. A bathroom and closet addition would be added toward the front of the second floor. The basement floor would now include a living and dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms. and one bathroom. Decks would be added to the rear of the first and second floors. The existing detached garage would be remodeled in the same manner as the previous design, expanding from its current substandard depth of 15 feet, 8 inches to a new depth of 18 feet, 6 inches. The previously proposed expansion to the existing parking pad to the side of the garage has been eliminated. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage to 2,308 square feet (20.5%), which 911 square feet less than the 3,219 square foot lot coverage of the previous design and less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%), The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,128 square feet, 720 square feet less than the 3,848 square feet proposed under the previous project design and the maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, a floor area exception is no longer requested. Planning Manager Watrous stated that because the specific variances requested by this project were not properly noticed, the item will be continued, but the Board was encouraged to take testimony from the applicant and neighbors on the design. Hank Bruce, architect, acknowledged that the Board cannot take final action due the noticing issues. He described the unique shape of this property and stated that the neighboring house is angled in such a way that it has denied the use of the lower portion of the site for improvements over the years in previous design review applications. He said that the current redesign was done in response to those concerns and instead uses the front yard area for improvements, which would enable the project to move uphill and away from the neighbors' viewlines. He illustrated the extent of deck and structure that were proposed in the previous application in comparison to the current redesign. He said that the floor area was reduced from the last application so that a floor area exception is no longer needed and the massing and view blockages from the previous design were also dramatically reduced. He noted that the neighbors still express some concerns related to floor area and that the Board stated that it would be a challenge to get close to the floor area maximum. He said that the current design had a very compressed footprint and the proposed lot coverage would only be 20% in a zone where 35% is allowed. Mr. Bruce stated that another major issue was privacy and stated that the main level deck would be about 30 feet away from the neighboring house. He said that by pulling the deck back and away they would maintain the neighbors' view angles to the Golden Gate Bridge and would no longer impose on the neighbor's views. He said the he did not believe that this application should be penalized by the proximity of the neighboring house and that an equal understanding and tolerance should be given to both properties. He said that the project would follow the Hillside Guidelines in terms of stepping the house back along the hill. He stated that they prepared shadow studies and showed that a shadow would begin to have some effect on the neighboring house at 4:00 p.m. He compared diagrams of the shadows at various time points with shadows cast by the existing house, stating that in the summer there would be no difference between the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 12/18/14 2 EXHIBIT NO. 9' shadows cast by the current structure and the proposed structure. He noted some concern raised about landscaping and said that they intend to preserve the magnolia tree and that a final landscape plan would be presented at the next meeting. The public hearing was opened. Riley Hurd, attorney representing the adjacent neighbors, Jennifer Dunbar and Richard Wodehouse, stated that the proximity of the houses is a constraint that the applicant must accept. I -Ie stated that the lower portion of the property has not been barred from development and in fact Ms. Dunbar supported a previous application in that location. He said that the proposed project would be at the maximum floor area ratio with decks on all sides. He said that the new architect never entered Ms. Dunbar's residence before redesigning the home and never reached out and never shared plans with her. He said that the house would be too big and the size was driving all of the impacts. He stated that the zoning ordinance states that the floor area ratio is not a guarantee but is a maximum and he felt that on sites like this the floor area should be reduced. He said that it was incorrect to compare the current proposal to a never -approved previous project. He said that the new decks on all levels of this home would greatly exacerbate the effects on the views from the kitchen, living area, and bedroom of the neighboring property and that raising the roofline would create a canyon between the two homes. He said that he was curious how the magnolia tree would be preserved when the deck would be up against the canopy of the tree, and stated that a final landscape plan will be critical. He said that the variance findings cannot be made and he characterized this as one of the most misapplied areas of law. He said that this was a self-created hardship and would be very injurious to the surrounding neighbors. He said that adding 57% to the existing floor area is hardly the type of privilege that variances are designed to protect. He stated that this house was recently purchased and expansion in a major way is not an option. Richard Wodehouse said that he has lived at his home for five years and that the applicant purchased the home last spring and currently rents it to tenants. He said that as a result, the owner has not experienced the noise and privacy effects that he has experienced. He appreciated some of the changes that were made to the application, but he felt that there were still problems. He said that the deck would be too close and needed to move back further. He said that the bedroom access facing his property should be eliminated. He said that the bulk of the great room extension would create a wall facing his property and that the two walk-in closets in the front would completely block the view of the sky from his bedroom. He said that without the magnolia tree he would be staring straight at the house and bathroom. He said that the continuing lack of credible story poles made him feel disregarded and deceived. He requested story poles at the railings and all that was installed was a two-inch ribbon between two story poles. He said that a story pole was missing that would show the end of the deck and this prevented neighbors from seeing the effect on his house. He requested that the DRB demand that the applicants put up horizontal bands showing the railing height and that the story poles be certified as to their location and height. Malcolm Wittenberg, owner, said that they walked the property with Mr. Wodehouse and his lawyer and they knew the plans were always available at his architect's office and were also available as public record. He said that they offered to meet with every neighbor prior to the last TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 TTTIBIT NO �- 3 12/18/14 �� meeting and they asked Ms. Dunbar to meet with them several times but she refused. He said that he did know how close the houses were when he purchased the house, but the same could be said about the neighbor. He said that they tried going down the hill and that was rejected, and they have now pulled back many feet and are meeting with the same criticisms. He stated that the project would have no effect on light and shadow for the neighbor's house. Mr. Bruce stated that the only variance of significance that was being requested was in the front yard and that seemed to be acceptable. He said that on the west side the variance would involve a sliver of the house and the other variance was an approximately two -foot request in order to align with the existing structure that the neighbor on that side supports. He said that on the day the drawings were due they reached out to the neighbors and invited them to come to look at the plans. He said that they spoke with Mr. Wodehouse and his attorney in the office and they saw the plans. He reiterated the difficulty of expanding on the property due to the layout of the lot and proximity to neighbors. He displayed a photograph showing the location of the Golden Gate Bridge view, building, and deck. He said that a deck was an essential part of a great room and was necessary for it to be livable. He apologized for the lack of story poles and said that he did not realize that it was a specific requirement. He said they will put the story poles up and certify them. hi answer to a question from Chair Cousins, Mr. Bruce stated that one pole had blown down and they will put it back up and will be clearer about the placement of the poles when they come back with the new drawings. Vice -Chair Tollini noted that the materials board showed shingles for the walls yet the plans denote stucco walls. Mr. Bruce said that they plan to use stucco. The public hearing was closed. Vice -Chair Tollini said he visited the site again and also visited the neighbor's house. He characterized the redesigned plans as a significant improvement, but said that he was still troubled by the deck that benefits the great room and second bedroom. Aside from the privacy impact from the deck, he said that someone standing on the deck would be in the middle of the view from the neighbor's house. He said that the deck would be large enough for a dining table and an umbrella in that location and it would be an area of congregation that would be quite impactful on the neighbors. He said that if the deck was dealt with he would have an easier time supporting the project. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Vice -Chair Tollini on the deck concerns. He reiterated that the site is very difficult and that the neighbor has a possible borrowed view across the lot which would be respected by the new design. He said that a separate structure might be better, but he noted that the neighbors and Town Council do not agree with that assessment. He said that it was unfair to suggest that the project could not achieve the maximum floor area for this lot. He said that the redesign solved most of the problems but his biggest concern was the large deck that would be so close to the neighbor's house. He said that the size of the deck would support more activities. He believed that the deck should be significantly reduced in size, especially in front of the bedroom. EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 4 12/18/14 Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers regarding the deck in front of the bedroom and suggested that it could be removed and the access doors could be eliminated. He said that the deck would still be 20' x 20' in front of the great room and although it would not block views of the Golden Gate Bridge, it would be in line with that view. He said that reducing the deck size and orienting it toward the view would go a long way to reducing the intrusiveness of the project on the neighbor. He said that it was a good idea to pull the house uphill. He suggested hipping the roof over the walk-in closets to reduce the impact. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the January 15, 2015 meeting. Vote: 3-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 1920 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 714108; Town of Tiburon, Owner; Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society, Applicant; Site Plan and Architectural Review for installation of gallows wheels and an accompanying plaque adjacent to the Tiburon Railroad & Ferry Depot Museum (Donahue Building) in Shoreline Park. The existing wheels are proposed to be relocated to the west side of the Donahue Building in a portion of the lawn area that would be excavated for the installation of the wheels and the planting of surrounding vegetation. In addition, a 3'-3" tall plaque would be installed along the paved pathway adjacent to the wheels. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-163-01. The applicant is requesting design review approval to install gallows wheels and an accompanying informational plaque adjacent to the Tiburon Railroad & Ferry Depot Museum (Donahue Building) in Shoreline Park. The so-called "gallows wheels" are currently located on Town of Tiburon right-of-way at the intersection of Mar West Street and Tiburon Boulevard, adjacent to the Belvedere -Tiburon Library. The wheels originally served as part of a ferry -to - railroad freight transfer structure located along the downtown waterfront during Tiburon's railroad era. The existing wheels are proposed to be relocated to the west side of the Donahue Building in a portion of the lawn area that would be excavated for the installation of the wheels and the planting of surrounding vegetation. In addition, a 3'-3" tall informational plaque would be installed along the paved pathway adjacent to the wheels. The wheels would be surrounded by a boxwood hedge to be maintained at a height not to exceed 18 inches above grade. The gallows wheels relocation project was the subject of three separate Town Council meetings held in 2003 and 2005, and was extensively discussed at that time. On August 17, 2005, the Town Council approved the relocation of the gallows wheels in concept, subject to conditions of approval and securing of trailing permits. Among the conditions of approval was design review approval by the Board. Alan Brune, executive director for Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, said that the Town Council approved the relocation of the gallow wheels at the Railroad Museum location in August 2005. He said that the design would not negatively impact the views from across the street and he believed that they have met the Council's conditions of approval. The public hearing was opened. EXHIBIT N O .-- ( 5 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 12/18/14 The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,652 square feet (18.3 %), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%). The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 1,866 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted floor area ratio for the property (3,447 square feet). In addition, the minimum required side yard setback in the R-1 zone is 8 feet. As part of the new addition, the garage would be situated closer to the street and encroach into the side yard setback a distance of 1 foot, 3 inches (1' 3") for a reduced side yard setback of six feet, nine inches (6' 9"). Therefore, the applicant has request a variance for reduced side yard setback. Marshall Schneider, architect, stated that they are requesting variance for a reduced side yard setback for the project and that he was available for any questions. There were no public comments. Boardmember Chong said that he visited the property, agreed with staff's findings regarding the variance, and supported the project. Vice -Chair Tollini stated that this was a modest proposal using the current building footprint and he also supported the project. Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers and said that this would be in keeping with other houses in the area. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) that the request for 27 Mercury Avenue is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3-0. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 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. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. This application was first reviewed at the November 6, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property raised concerns about the mass and size of the proposed project compared to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood and potential view impacts on the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 EXHIBIT N0. I 1/15/15 2 shared these concerns and concluded that the size of the project was too large for the neighborhood and that the visual mass of the proposed project was unacceptable. The Board also indicated that it could not support the requested variances or floor area exception. Revised plans were submitted by the new architect prior to the December 18 meeting. However, the revised plans included a modified request for a side yard setback variance and a new request for a reduced front yard setback variance that had not been properly noticed for'that meeting. As a result, the application was continued to the January 15, 2015 meeting. At the December 18, 2014 meeting, the Board took testimony from neighboring residents and commented on the revised project plans. The neighbors at 2356 Spanish Trail stated that the revised project would still result in view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for their home. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that the revised project design was a significant improvement and moved the project in the right direction. The Board felt that the rear decks were too larger, particularly off the second bedroom, and should be reduced in size. The Board then continued the application to the January 15, 2015 meeting. Revised plans have now been submitted. The area of the first floor deck has been reduced in front of the second bedroom, with a 4 foot, 8 inch deep deck now proposed in front of the bedroom and connecting to the larger deck attached to the adjacent great room. The roof has been hipped on both sides on the upper level to pull portions of the roofline further from the sides. Several of the proposed windows on both sides of the house have been modified, including a larger window on the east side of the second story bedroom and larger windows on the west side of the first floor. The floor area of the basement has been reduced by 7 square feet. A revised color and materials board has been submitted, indicating that the exterior of the building would be finished in gray colored stucco with white trim and light brown wood shingles would be installed on the roof. The revisions would increase the lot coverage of the project to 2,256 square feet (20.1%), which would be 52 square feet less than the previous design, 963 square feet less than the 3,219 square foot lot coverage of the original design and less than the maximum pernnitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%). The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,121 square feet, 727 square feet less than the 3,848 square feet proposed under the previous project design and the maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, a floor area exception is no longer requested. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of the structure, which is situated within the side yard setback of both side property lines. The revised plans indicate that the additions would extend to within 5 feet, 8 inches of the left (east) side property line and to within 5 feet, 10 inches of the right (west) side property line. Additions would also encroach to within 3 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 15 minimum front yard setback required in the R-2 zone. Variances are therefore requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks. Hank Bruce, architect, said that the available building footprint is quite constrained and the applicants are trying to create a project that would give them a livable space in a small corner of EXHIBIT NO TIBURON D.R.S. MINUTES #1 1/15/15 3 the property. He said that they were asking for a side yard setback variance on both sides and he was also the architect on the Brown's property next door and a setback variance was granted for that property for the same reason. He characterized the setback requests as minimal and said that they are important to the success of the project. He stated that they incorporated various suggestions from the last meeting into the proposal, including reducing the deck by 100 square feet and pulling it back by about 10 feet. He said that anything smaller than the present deck would be very restrictive. He stated that the distance from the deck to the window that views the house is 25 feet. He said that hip roofs were added to minimize the mass, as suggested by the Design Review Board at the previous meeting. He said that they met with the Browns since the last meeting and as a result of those conversations they reduced and relocated several windows facing their residence and now have the Browns' support. He stated that the proposed height is the same as the existing building and he therefore believed that the uphill concerns were inflated and reaching. He said that the biggest concerns were in the front and the view from the Dunbar kitchen window, which has a 270 degree view and is separate from all of the other spaces and is therefore not a main view room in the home. He believed that the current proposal reflected cooperation and the willingness to work with their neighbors. Albert DeLima, architect, stated that the project would not cut off the horizon view and all of the major landmarks, including the Golden Gate Bridge, Bay, and Angel Island, would still be viewable. He said that the existing building predates the Tiburon zoning ordinance and there were no requirements for side yard setbacks at the time it was built. He said that they were trying to be consistent with what is on the site and locating the addition where it would have the least impact. He said that the uphill end of the building is about 24 feet tall, which is not very tall considering there are large trees protecting the view of the building. The public hearing was opened. Riley Hurd, representing Jennifer Dunbar, said that there still seemed to be some confusion about the impact on the property next door. He said that no view obstruction was being claimed, but rather the issue was the impact on privacy. He said that they were only invited to talk with the applicants after the plans were submitted. He said that this home would be much larger than other homes in the area and he believed that the setback issue therefore could not be compared to other properties. He said that they had a hard time tracking the amount of encroachment into the setbacks because it changed in each design. He stated that a variance should not be granted when it is injurious to the surrounding properties and that is what would happen here and that all of the findings must be made to grant the variance. He suggested that there were some areas of potential compromise, as the issues were the size of the deck and the living room pop -out. He felt that it would be a good compromise if both those issues were addressed. Vice -Chair Tollini asked for clarification of the living room pop -out. Jennifer Dunbar stated that she would address that in her discussion and said that she would like to come to an amicable compromise. She said that the current design including 765 square feet of exterior south -facing decks would have a huge impact on her property. She said that the deck would be only 20 feet away from her house and the east side of the deck would look directly into her kitchen and second bedroom. She said that they would live with it if the deck was not pushed all the way out to the setback. She noted that this would be a legal duplex, which meant that another family in TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 1 /15/15 EXHIBIT 4 the bottom level would live right at her eye -level view and would have a huge impact. She said that the living room pop -out would affect her property because of shadowing from blocking the sun. She also felt that the large and numerous windows facing her property would create light impacts on her house. She said that there would be several doors going out to the deck that would face her kitchen and she would like the doors to face more toward the middle of the property. Derek Parker stated that this would be a substantial addition to the property and would have a substantial impact on the neighbors. He believed that approving the setback variance was not inconsequential, and said that the staff report was inadequate. He asked the DRB to reject the application and let the architect design a project that would meet the applicants' needs without requesting any variances. He said that approving this project would call into question why a zoning ordinance exists at all. Richard Woodhouse said that the pop -out to which Ms. Dunbar referred was in the living room and he pointed it out on the drawings. He said that he would like a new fence to be a condition of approval for the project, as the current fence is covered by ivy and held up by dead trees. He also asked to see a landscape plan and questioned whether the magnolia tree would be maintained or cut down. He said that the deck risers would be very close to his kitchen. He said that a surveyor came and surveyed the front and the back of the property, and then the poles were changed the next day, and he therefore questioned how the placement of the story poles could be certified. Malcolm Wittenberg, owner, stated that when he purchased the property there was foliage between the houses that has been cut back which now exacerbates the visual impact problem. He shared photographs of the vegetation at the time he purchased the property and after the foliage was cut down. He said that the impact of the project on the Dunbar property would have been much less if that foliage had not been cut down. Mr. Wittenberg addresses the issue of what could be seen from the neighboring kitchen and shared more photographs with the Board showing the view from the kitchen sink of the Dunbar home. He said that he tried to angle the camera as much as possible to see the impact on the view from the kitchen, but in his opinion no one using the kitchen would ever be subjected to that view angle. He addressed the issue of the proximity of the decks, stating that the new decks would be more distant from the Dunbar house than the existing decks. He said that the existing sliding door would be eliminated and therefore would reduce sound impacts. He said that the existing deck is large enough for entertaining and furniture, but the new deck would be smaller and not large enough to allow entertaining. He said that they moved the deck further away and made it small enough so that it would have much less impact on the neighbors. Mr. Wittenberg said that in response to the Board's feedback at the last meeting they reduced the floor area, reduced the deck sizes, eliminated the eastern facing doors, and reduced the mass on the second floor on the east. He said that the size of the structure would be quite modest and quoted the floor areas of other homes in the vicinity that are larger. He said that they tried to reduce the impacts on neighbors whenever they could. He said that the story poles were certified by a professional and the reason they were changed was that the surveyor told the contractor that the poles needed to be adjusted. He stated that he met with Mr. Woodhouse at the beginning of TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/15 5 EXHIBIT NO. ( d the project and suggested sharing the cost of the fence. He said that the magnolia tree is not a heritage tree and its effect on neighbors has nothing to do with the current project. Mr. DeLima said that his client provided a survey when the project began and they worked with that information but they asked the surveyor to double check his numbers. He said that a new survey was completed and they redid the entire site plan as a result. He commented on the privacy and noise effects and noted that the proposed decks and patios were either existing or smaller than existing and would be no closer than what exists on the property currently. The public hearing was closed. Vice -Chair Tollini said that the side yard setback variance request was unavoidable because otherwise it would require demolishing and moving parts of the house. He did not see a nexus between the setback and any impact on the Dunbar residence. He said that he visited the Dunbar residence that day and felt that there would still be a large impact caused by the pop -out and the decks. He did not think that it would take a large material adjustment to address these two items, as the pop -out and deck could be brought in a few feet. He agreed that a landscaping plan would be appropriate but he would be happy to defer to staff for its approval. He said that the Magnolia tree was not an issue. Chair Cousins stated that this is a very large site and this was the only location to put a large addition. He thought that the application had gotten better but it was not quite there yet. He said that the setbacks were almost at the required minimum near the Dunbar residence and the variance requests were not preposterous. He said that the Board suggested at the last meeting to cut back the deck to the living room and instead it was cut down to a four foot walkway. He suggested that if they want to keep the walkway then they should pull back the living room, which would also have the advantage of reducing the size of the window that would look directly into the Dunbar kitchen. He agreed that a landscape plan needed to be part of the proposal, as there should be some physical separation between the homes. Boardmember Chong said that he visited the site and also viewed it from the neighbors' home. He agreed with Vice -Chair Tollini regarding the variances. He said that the kitchen view from the Dunbar home was important because one spends a lot of time at the sink looking out of that window. However, he had a hard time seeing the impact on that view since one would be looking out at the bay and not at the neighboring home. He believed that the pendulum would swing too far in the other direction to place more constraints on the applicant and ask them to cut down further. He said that realistically they would not use the decks all the time. He said that when someone buys a home in close proximity to other homes it is part of being in a neighborhood to see and hear others. He said that the deck would be small and not used heavily for entertaining. He therefore did not believe that the privacy of the neighbors would be heavily impacted. Vice -Chair Tollini agreed that there was not a view corridor issue, but he believed that the project would impact the feeling of privacy in the Dunbar residence. He did not think that the deck necessarily needed to shrink but if the pop -out was brought in a few feet that would greatly diminish the impact and reduce the amount of glazing. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/15 6 EXHIBIT NO. 1 b Chair Cousins agreed that the view would not be impacted but activities would occur outside in the range of the view. He agreed that pulling the pop -out back would solve this issue. Vice -Chair Tollini agreed and did not believe that this would cause them to lose any functionality of the space. Boardmember Chong disagreed and questioned whether pulling the pop -out back would reduce impacts enough. Chair Cousins believed that this would make a fairly large reduction in the impact and that this would be a good compromise. The Boardmembers asked the applicants if they would prefer to continue the application or accept a condition of approval to pull back the pop -out and deck. Mr. Wittenberg said that this was a big decision for them because that great room would house the living room, dining room, and staircase all in one space. He asked if it would be possible to allow them to make a decision later. Vice -Chair Tollini suggested a continuance to allow the applicants to revise the plans, but added that he felt that he could support a project with the reduced pop -out. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Chong) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the February 19, 2015 meeting. Vote: 3-0. Mr. Wittenberg stated that he would like to change his mind and accept the additional condition of approval instead of the continuance. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Tollini) to rescind the continuance of 2312 Spanish Trail to the February 19, 2015 meeting. Vote: 3-0. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Chong) that the request for 2312 Spanish Trail is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval that the south wall of the first floor great room and the adjacent deck be pulled back 4 feet and that an adequate landscape plan be approved by staff prior to issuing the building permit. Vote: 3-0. 2. 9 BURRELL COURT: File No. 21422; Firuze Hariri, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct a new second story and additions to the garage, entry and rear of the house on the ground level, adding 1,734 square feet to the residence. The project would extend to within 19 feet, 2 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot minimum front yard setback required in the RO-2 zone. The project would also have a maximum lot coverage of 22.1%, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-302-05. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, on property located at 9 Burrell Court. A project was first approved on this site in 2008 after the Design Review Board denied a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/15 EXHIBIT NO. 1 7 Dan Watrous rom: Richard Wodehouse [rewodehouse@gmail.com] ant: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:52 AM fo: Dan Watrous Cc: Jennifer Dunbar Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail As the neighbors to the East, and the most affected by this proposed expansion, we request the following: • That DRB members come into our house to view the story poles. (my contact info below) • That the applicant put up webbing connecting the poles at the perimeters at the floor level on the East and South elevations. It is most difficult from the current vertical 2 x 4's to tell the impact and parameters of the proposed additions. o The deck perimeters at the level of the floor structure and the thickness of the proposed floor structure o The building perimeters at the at the various step -backs at the level of the structure of the decks above. Richard E. Wodehouse rewodehouse@gmail.com cell: 415 944 0278 PO Box 21.1, Tiburon, Ca 94920 www.richardwodehouse.com From our kitchen 1 '.1 EXHIBIT NO. IMG_3482 From our second bedroom 2 EXHIBIT NO. t \ IMG 3465 3 EXHIBIT NO. L • • • • OC1 3 0 Z014 October 28, 2014 —Daniel Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 LATE MAIL #ij' Dear Dan, I received the notice regarding Design Review for the residence at 2312 Spanish Trail Rd., and would like to make the following requests in regard to their construction plans. As you know, Spanish Trail is a narrow street with several areas in which traffic must proceed in only one direction. Therefore, I request that the board require the following as a Condition of Approval for any plan: 1. Require a parking plan for all construction vehicles. This plan must require that SPANISH TRAIL RD. maintain open access at all times. This requirement is imperative not only for access to our homes, but for emergency vehicle access as several of us living on Spanish Trail are seniors. 2. Provide a copy of this parking plan, along with a clear plan of action if the street is blocked (do we contact Tiburon police?), to all residents of Spanish Trail Rd. 3. Require that no construction vehicles travel on and/or unload on Spanish Trail Rd. There is NO turn around AND it will block this narrow street. 4. Any construction plan should require that 2312 provide at least four (4) clearly marked parking spots in the front of their home on Vista del Mar Lane (1 also think their address should be on this Lane, not Spanish Trail Rd). Sincer , Pamela Hoath 2349 Spanish Trail Rd. EXHIBIT N O . 11 Dan Watrous LA; MAIL # 'rom: ant: To: Subject: Anne Drew [asdrewl @comcast.net] Wednesday, October 29, 2014 4:47 PM Dan Watrous Wittenberg model• _ OCT1,9 [U.1,4 Dear Mr. Watrous, My husband and I would only like to comment on parking issue that 2312 Spanish Trail poses every time this property changes hands or comes in for remodel. We strongly huge the Design Review Board to insist that the applicant fully address the continuing problem of parking. Since it is obvious that that the request is being made to add on to the existing two-family dwelling, it is essential that two OFF street spaces be include for each dwelling—therefore 4 spots. The home is the only one on Spanish Trail that does not use off street parking on a regular basis and assumes that the one spot of the street belongs to 2312. Thank you. Anne Drew 2345 Spanish Trail asdrew1Pcomcast.net 1 EXiiIBIT NO. 13 LATE MAIL #4_ Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 David Kirchhoff 2290 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, CA 94920 415-531-2656 e-mail: 2290@sbcglobal.net October 29, 2014 n„ Ii1 001'9'Lu1ti -�f Pc: 2312 Spanish Trail Application for Remodel and Expansion I support the Wittenberg's plans for the remodel and expansion of their home at 2312 Spanish Trail for the following reasons: 1. This is an older home and upgrading it will be an improvement to the neighborhood 2. The design appears to be considerate of neighbors regarding their light, views, and privacy 3. I have seen the work of the designer of this project and she creates tasteful designs that are not intrusive including excellent landscaping 4. With approval of these plans, it will be a welcome relief to the neighborhood that this home will not be torn down and replaced by something that is potentially less consistent with the interesting and appealing collage of designs in Lyford Cove 5. In sum, approval of these plans will create a significant improvement to this property and to the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. David Kirchhoff EXHIBIT NO. 1 LATE MAL # Lynn Henriksen 2290 Spanish Trail Rd i OCT9 2014 Tiburon, CA 94920 415.435-6000 October 29, 2014 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon Re: Wittenberg Remodeling Plans 2312 Spanish Trail Rd I have reviewed the plans and story poles regarding these plans for remodeling and expanding the old house at 2312 Spanish Trail. This remodel will be a significant improvement to the existing, older improvements currently on the property. Moreover, the plans do not appear to effect neighbor's views, privacy nor light. Please approve this application as it will be a considerable addition to the neighborhood. Thank you, L" nn Henriksen EXHIBIT TTY NO, (6. i•,;= •, 0 3 LU l y Design Review Board Town of Tiburon October 30, 2014 Li Dear Members of the Board, I have reviewed the plans for 2312 Spanish Trail dated October 21, 2014, and have some reservations concerning the project and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. My first impression is that while the design is gorgeous, it is just t0000000o BIG! I worry that what we see on paper will be way out of scale for the neighborhood, and we will not know this until it is too late. I understand that at this stage of the design review, the Applicant is not required to have horizontal ties to the top roofline, but I think they are essential to telling the true story. I propose that the item be postponed until this is done and we can all see the impact on the neighborhood. My home is at 1 Vista Del Mar Lane, directly below the subject property. While I have no view issues, I strongly oppose the project because of its excessive bulk and mass and extravagant FAR. BULK AND MASS: The size of the finished building (3 story existing plus 2 story addition) feels out of scale with the surrounding homes, which are predominately 2 -story homes living within their FAR. Granted, the existing home is 3 stories and that will not change. However, the blockiness of the additions reinforces the feeling of bulk. From Vista Del Mar Lane, the effect of the new structure is the same as a 5 story building...a 3 story structure on an upslope of 20+ foot elevation from the street. (Elevations taken from Norris plans). I urge the Board to look at it from the perspective standing on Vista Del Mar and suggest ways to articulate or step the new structure into the ground to reduce the overall mass of the structure. This may also improve views for the uphill neighbors. EXHIBIT No. P, 6� 3 One of the elements of the proposed plan really adds to the sense of bulk is the area of new living space to the right of the chimney on the upper floor. See Applicant's plans Page 6 - North elevation. As noted above, the storey poles do not give the full effect of this addition. Because the existing house will not be lowered, some other measure must be taken to reduce the bulk from the upper floor. I suggest moving this 255 square foot addition to a lower floor and leaving the outside of the upper floor as it is. There is an argument that says that any addition to the upper floor should require a height variance. The Applicant's plans show the height of the existing structure is 29.5 feet, but on previous plans it was stated to be 35. At one time I considered purchasing the property and it was measured by my architect, Pacific Design Group as 35 feet. I was told by Staff that there are many ways to measure height, but this is a glaring inconsistency that needs to be addressed by the DRB. WISH LIST ITEMS: Today there is a large Magnolia tree screening the lower 2 floors of the existing house. The site plan on page 1 shows that this tree is to be removed. It will be years until any new tree can provide the softening that this tree does. Perhaps, a different, less blocky plan, might preserve it. A brief note on parking. This property has always had available but unused parking. While it is a good idea to improve the garage on Vista Del Mar, it does not address the real issue. It is too far away from the main house. Nobody uses it except for storage of unused cars and belongings. Would parking be more used if it were up on Spanish Trail? Maybe as a carefully screened parking deck in the flag portion of the lot? I know it would take setback variances and approvals from the Department of Public works, but I think it would greatly improve the neighborhood. Then, the tenants could use the garage off Vista Del Mar and the valuable green space in the lower yard could be preserved, providing screening for the adjacent neighbors. (As a bonus, space used for internal stairways could be reclaimed as living space.) IN SUMMARY: I cannot fathom why such a generous FAR is being requested, unless it is to test us all and see if we are paying attention. Looking at the final structure once it is EX} IBIT NO. (a P, 2b'F3 built, one will see that it violates every metric the rules impose: Front yard setback variance, left yard setback variance, right yard setback variance, rear yard setback used for accessory structure, height variance (at least visually), AND a FAR exception. This property explodes onto its neighbors at every dimension. 1 strongly urge you to deny the FAR exception, and ask the applicant to come back with a significantly scaled back proposal. Sincerely, Sue Zimmerman (Quinn) 1 Vista Del Mar Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. 3c5 3 Dan Watrous LATE MAIL #±1 - From: Celia DeMartini [celiadm@pacbell.net] lent: Friday, October 31, 2014 4:56 PM fo: Dan Watrous Cc: marcdm@clearwire.net Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Tiburon, CA ij 3 LU I Hi Dan! I have looked at the plans briefly and seen the storey poles for the proposed work at 2312 Spanish Trail. Our property, 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane is next door to the proposed project. I like the Wittenbergs very much and want to be positive about the project but I have some reservations and concerns. I believe the proposed structure needs to comply with all current codes and restrictions including Floor Area Ratios and in addition the new structure should not block any views of neighboring homes or potentially compromise any neighboring properties' privacy. The issues I have with the current design include the following: 1. It looks to me as if the storey poles indicating the proposed roof line when built could block or impair views from our neighbor's house at 2356 Spanish Trail 2. Our privacy at 2323 does not appear to be compromised by the proposed structure but other neighbors' privacy may be. (I figure if these issues are problems for one or two neighbors in the area they are problems for us all because of the size and scope of this work and potential for similar construction in our area in the ature) 1. I understand that the Wittenbergs are requesting additional square footage -much more than is currently allowed, making the structure much larger than the other structures in the neighborhood. I believe the new construction should comply with size requirements for the lot. The FAR requirements were established for a reason. I think this requirement is to make sure homes esthetically fit in their surroundings and the neighborhoods. Please keep this in mind when working with the Wittenbergs on their design. 2. I am glad that the 'converted carport/garage' located on Vista Del Mar Lane is going to be converted into a legal garage. Previously our 2312 Spanish Trail neighbor's cars, storage and boat couldn't fit in the 'garage/carport' on the Vista Del Mar Lane side of the property. Cars, a boat and all kinds of other storage were stored all over the Vista Del Mar Lane side of the property. It was unsightly I know this would not be the Wittenbergs intent but I would suggest that there be sufficient off street parking for the structure and that no additional parking be allowed on Vista Del Mar Lane other than the proposed garages on the Vista Del Mar Lane side of the lot. I believe the design could be modified to be in keeping with the esthetics of Vista Del Mar Lane, not block views or hamper the privacy of others in the neighborhood. Again I believe the Wittenbergs want to design a structure that will not impact others and will fit in esthetically with the neighborhood, so while I want to encourage them to improve the property I want them and the Design Review Board 'o require that the structure's design complies with existing building codes without variances which if granted may adversely impact the neighbors' properties. Sincere) EXHIBIT NO. Cul , Y, 1 Celia DeMartini Co -Trustee Ann DeMartini Survivor's trust 415-924-8363 415-225-1793 415-435-1793 PO Box 747 Corte Madera, CA 94976 2 EXHIBIT NO._.�- Shelley Brown & Jay Bellin OTEPAAIL 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane, Tiburon, CA 94 LU October 31, 2014 Re: Wittenberg Residence, 2312 Spanish Trail Design Review Board: As the Wittenberg's next door neighbors to the west, we look forward to having them as new neighbors and to a design that will nestle the hill, fall within the scale and scope of the neighboring homes and add charm to our neighborhood. We support this project, provided it conforms to the maximum permitted floor area ratio for a property of this size, and conforms to the 8 foot side yard setback. We understand the front of the main living area will be equipped with bi-fold glass walls. We anticipate the living area will extend onto the deck on a regular basis and for privacy and noise level concerns, we feel strongly that the house and deck area should conform to the 8 foot setback. Sincerely, Shelley Brown & jay Bellin 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane EXHIIBIT NO, 1 b Heckmann Architects November 5, 2014 RE: 2312 Spanish Trail Rd. L. 6tii:'v t4rjvU ZU•iq Members of the Design Review Board, 1 am providing consulting input for Scott and Aiyene Schneidewind who live at 2375 Spanish Trail. Their home is across the street and to the north of the project being proposed. I met with them in their home recently and then also made a closer review of the property and the story poles. They must register several strong objections to the project at 2312 Spanish Trail as currently proposed: 1. The proposed residence is massive. The applicant proposes to build what is essentially a new residence keeping one roof and a few walls and will result in a 'box with balconies'. The resultant boxy shape in plan and elevation results in a structure with excessive bulk and mass that is inappropriate for this lot and the neighborhood. 2. The project requires side yard setback variances of 2 feet on the west and east side AND a floor area exception. Clearly, these elements not complying with the zoning restrictions is a primary reason the project is too massive. It negatively impacts the two side properties and sets a dangerous precedent for the R-2 zone. NO setback variance can be allowed. NO floor area exception can be allowed. After the project meets these two zoning standards, it can then be considered with the smaller footprint and floor area for compliance with neighborhood compatibility. 3. The majority of the new roofs are sloped at 1 '/2" in 12", which is a token effort towards a sloped -roof, traditional architectural style. If allowed to be built, these roofs will appear like flat roofs from the two streets and the two side properties. As proposed, these roofs provide little relief from the appearance of a 'box with balconies'. 4. The roof and walls of the proposed master dressing room/closet impact the water view from 2375 Spanish Trail. This element needs to be reduced in size by at least 50% so it only extends to the south by a minimal distance. If more clothing storage is needed, some area can be reallocated from the master bedroom which, at 15' x 22', is quite large. 1660 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 II Tel 415.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 EXHIBIT heckmannarchitects@earthlink.net EXEIIBIT NO www.heckmannarchitects.com t c›F 5. In order to preserve privacy between neighbors, the balconies of the project at the Main and Upper Levels need to be reduced. The Upper balcony could be about 8' x 20' and be centered on the width of the building. This is a very generous size for master bedroom use. The Main Level balcony also needs be set back from both sides of the building by at least 4'. This reduces the balcony by only 100 SF and still provides a balcony of 300 SF which is a very generous size. Roofs can be introduced to replace these balcony areas and would help to articulate the sides of the building for more interest. 6. The significant number of east windows will introduce more light pollution to be visible from 2375 Spanish Trail. This can be alleviated by removing ALL the east windows at the Upper Level and removing at least one of the windows from both Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 3. It should be noted that the story pole installed on the highest, new eastern ridge is not installed accurately and needs to be relocated to the south. Finally, it seems clear that this project cannot be considered for approval with the encroachment into the side yards and the 720 SF of excess floor area still being proposed. We respectfully request that this project be continued to allow the applicant to modify the project to address the negative impacts evident in the current proposal. Regards, Michael Heckmann AIA EXHIBIT NO. -c(- ?. 7 ccF- Z c(-?.2o1z LATLMAiL . To: Tiburon Design Review Board Members 'l' NOV 0.e• 2014 �! From: Jennifer Dunbar - Homeowner of 2356 Spanish Trail, Tiburon (residing at 2356 Spanish Trail for five years) Regarding: The proposed addition to 2312 Spanish Trail by Malcom and Bonnie Wittenberg (Purchased house 4/17/14, currently occupied by tenants) Dear Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, Thank you for giving me the opportunity and forum to voice my opposition to the proposed addition to 2312 Spanish Trail on the Nov. 6, 2014 agenda. The proposed addition will severely impact my home at 2356 Spanish Trail by greatly increasing noise, and heavily impacting privacy. Additionally, the story poles clearly show the new structure will block our afternoon sun, and reduce the primary southwest facing views of the Golden Gate Bridge, bay, and the west ridge line that we currently enjoy. Both houses are currently similar in square footage. 2356 Spanish Trail is 1947sf (per assessor records) and 2312 Spanish Trail is 2,002sf (per assessor record) and 2,150sf on the MLS details of the latest sale to the Wittenberg (1 believe they were including the uninhabitable "shed" located on the town right of way adjacent to Spanish Trail as part of the square footage). 2356 Spanish Trail is a single level house and 2312 Spanish Trail is a three story house with a pitched roof. 2312 Spanish Trail is oriented southeast at 135deg and 2356 Spanish Trail is oriented due south at 180deg. The Wittenberg's are proposing leveling the top story roof to the height of the current pitched roof and pushing the house, all three stories with leveled roof, southeast by 3' towards the garden. In addition, they propose a new two story structure with a deck on top of it adjacent to the expanded three story structure, and finally a *one story structure with a deck on top of it adjacent to their new second story addition. The lower level addition also has a garden level deck with ingress/egress doors facing our borne. The size, location, and use of these additions will impact my home in such a way that the findings for approval cannot be made. Please see the below photo. Per the staff report, the Wittenberg's are requesting a gross floor area of 3,848sf, which would be 720sf greater than maximum permitted gross floor area for a property of this size. This requires a floor area exception. Per the Wittenberg's drawings, the current overall square footage of the 2.0 EXHIBIT N0. main house is 1,997sf. The maximum allowable floor area ratio for 2312 Spanish Trail is 3,1 28sf. This is a situation where the characteristics of the property make anything near the maximum inappropriate. The drawings take the liberty to add in the detached "shed" as existing square footage which misrepresents that the existing square footage of the main house is 2101sf and the addition only adds 1,493sf to the main house structure, when in fact it actually adds 1,597sf to the main house. This is an increase of the current house size by 80%. The sheer size and volume of leveling the roof line to the highest pitch casts my kitchen deck and west bedroom of 2356 Spanish Trail completely into the shade by 2:30. By 3:00 the yard, kitchen, kitchen deck and west bedroom will be in the shade from the proposed addition. That is essentially the whole house except one bedroom. We already have noise issues between the two houses. 2312 Spanish Trail was built in 1933 and 2356 Spanish Trail was built in 1955. Per the Wittenberg's drawings there are only 2'6" setbacks from both houses to the property line. Further exacerbating this nonconforming setback would only make a bad situation worse. We can already hear every word and sound from their existing front patio and rear wooden deck. When voices are raised within their house, we can also hear every word. Proposing three party decks in direct line of site to our kitchen, kitchen deck, living room, living room deck, and west bedroom will permit unacceptable levels of noise and privacy intrusion. EXHIBIT NO P . Z oFc The 2 -story addition and deck is right in front of our kitchen and the small kitchen deck. You cannot look towards the Golden Gate Bridge without looking through this second story deck in the middle of our primary views. In addition to the view impact, the privacy of my kitchen, kitchen deck, west bedroom, living room and living room deck will be severely impacted. The night time lights thrown off by a three story house with three large decks and doors on the walk in level facing our house situated just feet away will be extremely annoying to our peace and quiet at 2356 Spanish Trail. This proposed addition not only affects the quiet enjoyment of our property through increased noise, reduction of sunlight, interior and deck lighting at night, obstruction of primary views; as a real estate broker I strongly believe this will have a severe negative impact on the overall property value and desirability of 2356 Spanish Trail. I invite you all to my house to judge the impact on 2356 Spanish Trail of this proposed addition to 2312 Spanish Trail. Thank you again for your time. Warm regards, Jennifer Dunbar (415)272-4635 EXHIBIT N0. Y. 3 ate( VIEW FROM THE KITCHEN DECK -NOTE THE LOWER STORY POLES RUNNING THROUGH THE MAGNOLIA TREE EXHIBIT N O . 2b PROPOSED ROOF LINE E IIBIT NO. 26 PROPOSED ROOF LINE WITH SOUTH STORY POLE - TAKEN FROM KITCHEN DECK EXHIBIT NO.. 2 O • LATE MAIL # Ragghianti I Freitas LLP Riley F. Hurd III rhurd@rflawllp.com November 6, 2014 Via E -Mail Only (dwatrous@townoftiburon.oa g) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 2312 Spanish Trail - File No. 21426 Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawl►p.com NOV 0::. 1014 ids j\.' lint r• ti Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Our office represents Jennifer Dunbar in connection with the above -referenced application. Ms. Dunbar is the owner of the home at 2356 Spanish Trail ("Dunbar Property"), which is directly to the East of the proposed project. The purpose of this letter is to explain why the proposed project would have significant negative impacts on the Dunbar Property such that the necessary findings for site plan and architectural review and two variances cannot be made. We understand that this is late mail, so we will try to be as brief as possible, and will supplement this letter with a presentation at tonight's hearing. Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings Simply put, the proposed project is too big. If anything, the lot at 2312 Spanish Trail dictates a home well below the FAR maximum, it certainly does not support one above it. While the current story poles do indicate view obstructions of the Golden Gate Bridge from the kitchen deck and Master Bedroom on the Dunbar Property, the issues of bulk, mass, privacy, and light are actually more significant at this time. A visit to the site immediately reveals a proposed massive East facade full of window penetrations, and an expansion containing two large decks and one patio area right next to the Dunbar Property. Due to the incredibly close proximity of the two homes, the requested expansion area would greatly impinge on the privacy of the Dunbar kitchen and bedroom while also significantly blocking almost all afternoon sun from critical EXHIBIT No._ t„.1 Ragghianti (Freitas LLP November 6, 2014 Page 2 of 3 areas of the home. Accordingly, finding 16-52.020(H)(2) of the Code cannot be made. The proposed site layout in relation to the Dunbar Property is so impactful as to prohibit the project. Furthermore, the size of the home, as well as the bulk, does not bear a reasonable relationship to the neighborhood or the directly. adjacent structures. Accordingly, finding (H)(3) regarding neighborhood character also fails. Floor Area Exception A floor area ratio exception cannot be supported here. The visual size and scale the proposed structure does not fit the predominant pattern of the neighborhood or the adjacent homes. This is a required finding under 16-52.020(1)(4)(a) in order to grant an exception. Also the proposed structure is not compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. Specifically, the two irregularly shaped lots, and the manner in which they intersect, are not respected by the proposed design, thereby resulting in a looming, bulky wall directly in the line of sight and up against the Dunbar property. Accordinglythe exception finding in section (b) cannot be made. Variances The findings for a side yard setback variance as set forth in Code section 16-52.030 cannot be made. Specifically, finding 1, that failure to grant the variance would "deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity" is not supported here. The expansion into the setbacks would be for the purpose of making a home nearly twice the size of others in the neighborhood. This is not a request for an equal privilege, but a request to go far beyond the norm at the expense of a neighbor. Variance finding 4 can also not be made because the variance would be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. As noted above, the area of the encroachment is the exact area that would block the light and view from the Dunbar property, while reducing privacy levels to near zero. There is no reason to exacerbate the difficult condition that already exists at the site by allowing deviations from the development standards. Conclusion All of the above points are best understood from a visit to the site and observation of the two subject properties. Hopefully, each member of the DRB has seen the interior of the Dunbar home. We will also bring photographic evidence to the hearing demonstrating the points contained in this letter. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. EXHIBIT NO. 2- Q, z °F3 November 6, 2014 Page 3 of 3 CC: Jennifer Dunbar IF Ragghianti Freitas LLP Very Truly Yours, itiria Riley F. Hurd III EXHIBIT NO. at Dan Watrous LHTE MA[L # From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Watrous, Jannette E. Mussche [jannette.mussche@gmail.com] Thursday, November 06, 2014 3:28 PM Dan Watrous Comments for 2312 Spanish Trail File 21426 WliV 0 1U14 We have reviewed the proposed construction plans for 2312 Spanish Trail Road (STR) and would like to note the following: - the proposed second floor extension on the east side of the home would cut into the water views from two bedrooms on our property. - As the plan indicates, there is a shed located on the Town of Tiburon right of way. This segment of STR is located at the bottom of our common driveway and as there are often one or two vehicles parked in this space, navigating the turn can be challenge. We acknowledge that this is a Town right of way space and as such, parking is allowed. However, as improvements are being planned to the home, we request that consideration be given to enhancing parking at that spot, perhaps by relocating the shed and widening the parking spot. Thank you in advance for sharing our comments with the Design Review Board. Sincerely, Jannette and Paul Mussche EXHIBIT NO. 11 Connie Cashman From: Dan Watrous Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:42 AM Co: aIIDRB Cc: Connie Cashman Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Late mail for 2312 Spanish Trail... Original Message From: Richard Wodehouse [mailto:rewodehouse(agmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:30 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Riley Hurd; Jenn Dunbar Subject: Re: Friday afternoon, no story Pole I feel strongly that it is quite unfair to have the meeting this Thursday to discuss the plans because there has been no opportunity for the neighbors to see what the new design would look like because there hasn't been a key story pole that shows the deck next to our house and the impact that it still has us on our kitchen and kitchen deck and bedroom u, i Zu14 pi LATE MAIL #/ Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Dan Watrous <dwatrousetownoftiburon.org> wrote: > Riley, If you've read the staff report, you know that the DRB can't act on the application this Thursday, as the new design requires a front yard setback variance and a different side yard setback variance than was included in the notice for this meeting. We're encouraging the Board to discuss the merits of the new design (but not comment on the merits of the variances), then continue the application to the January 15 meeting. Since is the Board's and neighbors' first look at the new design, we feel it would be useful to get some preliminary feedback on the design, rather than waiting until January 15 for the initial comments. > Please let me know if you have any additional questions. > Sincerely, > Dan Watrous > Daniel M. Watrous > Planning Manager > Town of Tiburon > (415) 435-7393 > Original Message From: Riley Hurd [mailto:rhurd@rflawl1p.com] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:25 PM {'XrIIFIT NO. a 3 > To: Richard Wodehouse; Dan Watrous > Cc: Jenn Dunbar R [ C>F- 1 > Subject: RE: Friday afternoon, no story Pole > • "story poles and connecting material shall be installed at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the hearing date." - 16.50.070 > Also, the DRB explicitly required connecting tape for all parts of the poles for this project. > Thanks. > Riley F. Hurd III, Esq. > RAGGHIANTI 1 FREITAS LLP > 1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100 > San Rafael, CA 94901 > Tel: 415.453.9433 ext. 126 > Fax: 415.453.8269 > Email: rhurd(larflawl1p.com > Website: httD://www.rflawllD.com/ > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644.) If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender at: rhurdarflawl1o.com<mailto:rhurdearflawllr.com>. Thank you. > Original Message > From: Richard Wodehouse [mailto:rewodehouse0gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:19 PM > To: Dan Watrous > Cc: Jenn Dunbar; Riley Hurd > Subject: Friday afternoon, no story Pole > Neighbors who wanted to come over this weekend and see the story poles and impact of 2312 deck from our side cannot really see it until pole is up again. People busy next week. EXIlBIT NO.Z3 2 2 LATE MAIL #� Dan Watrous From: Celia DeMartini [celiadm@pacbell.net] snt: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:43 PM o: Dan Watrous Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail j• DEC: 1:_ 1014 PLAIC4NG ER'IUIGI\! Dear Mr. Watrous and the Design Review Board: I am one of the owners/co-trustees of 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane, a neighboring property to 2312 and 2356 Spanish Trail. I agree with the staff report concerning a continuance and suggest that a continuance for this project be granted and it be brought up again during the January meeting of the Design Review Board. I have a couple of reasons for this: 1. An important story pole fell during the storm of December 11th. This pole was significant as it defined the main deck of the proposed project. Without that story pole it is difficult for us to analyze the impact of the design. In addition due to the weather the pole was not up for the required amount of time. I thought story poles were placed on a property to provide the neighbors and interested parties with a visual representation so that we can get an idea concerning the impact of a proposed project on the neighborhood, the neighbors, our property, etc. Again if an important story pole is missing for much of the period it is supposed to be up then we neighbors are getting an inadequate representation of the proposed project. 2. Between the weather's impacts on the story poles, the latest storms' effect on accessibility to the site, combined with the Holiday Season, I wonder if the design review board has had time to visit the site and ialyze the impact of this project on the neighbors particularly the folks at 2356 Spanish Trail. For these reasons I request a continuance until the January 2015 meeting. Thanks for your consideration and I hope you all have a very happy Holiday Season. Regards, Celia DeMartini Co -trustee of 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane 415-924-8363 415-225-1793 EXHIBIT NO.�-- Connie Cashman From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:29 AM To: a1IDRB Cc: Connie Cashman Subject: FW: 2312 Spanish Trail Late mail for 2312 Spanish Trail... LATE MAIL #_[ From: Celia DeMartini [mailto:celiadm(aacbell.net] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:43 PM I� To: Dan Watrous DSL `I _ LU H L� Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Dear Mr. Watrous and the Design Review Board: I am one of the owners/co-trustees of 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane, a neighboring property to 2312 and 2356 Spanish Trail. I agree with the staff report concerning a continuance and suggest that a continuance for this project be granted and it be brought up again during the January meeting of the Design Review Board. I have a couple of reasons for this: 1. An important story pole fell during the stone of December 11th. This pole was significant as it defined the main deck of the proposed project. Without that story pole it is difficult for us to analyze the impact of the design. In addition due to the weather the pole was not up for the required amount of time. I thought story poles were placed on a property to provide the neighbors and interested parties with a visual representation so that we can get an idea concerning the impact of a proposed project on the neighborhood, the neighbors, our property, etc. Again if an important story pole is missing for much of the period it is supposed to be up then we neighbors are getting an inadequate representation of the proposed project. 2. Between the weather's impacts on the story poles, the latest storms' effect on accessibility to the site, combined with the Holiday Season. I wonder if the design review board has had time to visit the site and analyze the impact of this project on the neighbors particularly the folks at 2356 Spanish Trail. For these reasons I request a continuance until the January 2015 meeting. Thanks for your consideration and 1 hope you all have a very happy Holiday Season. Regards, Celia DeMartini Co -trustee of 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane 415-924-8363 415-225-1793 PLA,1 !1\1.:!,I :., TT EXHIBIT N0._ 254 LAT: MAIL # Dan Watrous From: Stephen Bradley Personal [sbradley0429©live.com] ent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:09 PM o: Dan Watrous Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Rd. Regarding the above address I would like to request a continuance for the following reasons:,, ,. - .. . 1. The new design still has significant impacts on the neighbor to the East at 2356 Spanish Trail and to other neighbors that need to be analyzed further. 2. The key story pole that defined the main deck fell down on Thursday Dec 11th. Story poles were completed late in the day Monday the 8th, so this pole was only visible for 2 days. As of today's date Sunday Dec. 14th it has not been replaced. That means that even if it is replaced Monday the 15th it would visible for only 6 days out of the required 10 days. 3. There was only one 2" ribbon placed between two poles which made it very difficult to judge the impact of any of the proposed additions either in the front or the rear of the proposed project. 4. The neighbors should be given a better opportunity to visit the project and see the story poles. This week during holiday season is a hardship for many to spend the necessary time or to attend the meeting currently scheduled for the 18th. Sincerely, Stephen A. Bradley 2380 Spanish Trail Rd. iburon, CA 94920 Tel no. 415-889-5500 1 T EXHIBIT NO.! 'LATEMA1L# Ragghianti Freitas LLP Riley F. Hurd II1 rhurd@rflaw]lp.com December 17, 2014 Via E -Mail Only (dwatrous@to2Unoftiburon.o1 g) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 2312 Spanish Trail - File No. 21426 i)� _ L \i)i DLL 1 , P' P.t14'NaNG '.vi'.{ N Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawIlp.com Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Our office continues .to represent Jennifer Dunbar in connection with .the referenced application. • Ms. Dunbar is the owner of the home at 2356 Spanish' Trail' ("Dunbar Property"), wliich.is directly to the East of the proposed. project. The purpose of this letter is to explain why the redesigned project would still have significant • negative impacts on the Dunbar. Property, such that the necessary findings for site.plan.. and architectural review, and variances, cannot be made. Site Plan and Architecturaii Review Findings Marty of the Town's required findings for approval cannot be made for the current proposal. The primary reason for this is that the house is still much too large for the highly constrained site. At the previous hearing on this matter, the DRB was unanimous in its direction that not only was a FAR exception out of the question, but that the constraints of this lot dictated a home well below the FAR maximum. In response, the applicants have proposed a max -FAR house, with severe impacts on the Dunbar Property resulting from the 20d and 3rd floor decks, the 3rd floor roof change, and the new 2"d floor massing on the Eastside of the home. Even the briefest visit to the project site reveals its highly constrained nature. A cursory review of the planning file for the property confirms this fact (past project denials and extensive commentary about the limits of any future development). Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Town Code sets forth the guiding principles of site plan and architectural review. At a minimum, the following findings cannot be made: T TT E�,TH.IBIT NO. 27 . c DF—L( L if Ragghi an ti 1Freitas LLP December 18, 2014 Page 2 of 4 1. Finding No. 1 - Site layout in relation to adjoining sites - This finding requires the consideration of "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise -generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions." a. The location and orientation of the Dunbar Property makes development to the rear of the applicants' property very difficult. This situation was not created by any of the current owners, but is the precise type of "particular site conditions" anticipated by Finding No. 1. b. As demonstrated by the plans and shown in the photo attached as -Exhibit A, the proposed rear decks, windows, doors, and mass, are unacceptably detrimental to the privacy of the Dunbar kitchen, kitchen deck, and bedroom, while also blocking light and air. It is unclear why the ingress and egress points of multiple stories of rear -yard development are oriented towards .Dunbar Property instead of. downhill. These repetitive access points are not necessary and needlessly add to privacy and light impacts. This finding cannot be made without major plan changes. 2. Finding No. 7 - Landscaping - Any development proposal for the subject property is likely going to require significant landscape screening in order to meet the code requirements. The DRB should require a fully formed landscape plan in conjunction with the review of any application. a. Also, the fate of the mature magnolia tree at the rear of the applicants' property should be considered as part of this process. While said tree blocks a small portion of the view from the Dunbar Property, it screens a major portion of a downhill residence, and it's therefore important that the tree remain. 3. Finding No. 12 - Conformance with zoning requirements - The proposal calls for exacerbating currently nonconforming sideyard setbacks. As will be discussed below, the findings for such a variance cannot be made. Section 16-52.020 (I) of the Town Code addresses Floor Area and notes that the floor area ratio guideline is "not intended as a target to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum." Accordingly, "the town may authorize less than the maximum square footage indicated by the floor area ratio guideline when necessary to EXHIBIT NO. 2-7 p. 2 r 1 t Ragghianti Freitas LLP December 18, 2014 Page 3 of 4 achieve compatibility with surrounding development, to maintain the neighborhood character, or for other good cause." The surrounding development pattern in this scenario compels a home significantly smaller than the maximum. Specifically, the impacts on privacy, light, and air on the Dunbar Property that stem from a max -FAR house compel a significantly smaller home. Finally, the rear -yard decks do not comport with Hillside Design Guideline Goal 3, Principle 6, which notes that obtaining views should not come at the expense of a neighbor's privacy, which is exactly what is occurring here. Variances The. findings for, a side yard setback variance as set forth. in Code. section ,16-52, 030.(E) cannot be made. Specifically, these required findings are as follows, .and all of them. must be made: - Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of .this zoning . -ordina ce.wi'i1 deprive the applicant of privileges .erioyed 'may o her�-:prop.er-ties:.H: in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; a. COMMENT: The proposed max -FAR house is significantly larger than most homes in the neighborhood. This is a privilege well beyond those enjoyed by "other properties in the vicinity, and not -one that warrants: a:: variance. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; 3. The strict application of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance; and a. COMMENT: The prior owners of the applicants' property created the supposed hardship (i.e. building in the setbacks). Accordingly, this condition cannot serve as the basis for a variance. EXHIBIT NO. 17 P. 3 L EF Ragghianti Freitas LLP December 18, 2014 Page 4 of 4 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. a. COMMENT: Exacerbating the problems created by the existing nonconforming setbacks would be incredibly injurious to the Dunbar Property in the form of privacy impacts, and obstruction of air and light. At least 3 of the conjunctive findings for a variance cannot be made. Any new improvements should be required to conform with the Town's Code. Process There have been multiple failures in process regarding this project. The.first;Andmost disappointing, is that the'new architect for the project failed to engage in any with Ms. Dunbar in advance of designing and submitting new plans. This includes failing to visit the Dunbar Property in advance of submittal to understand the impacts and " relationship of the _sites, This could partly explain why the new submittal. still .d sregaK4s,:flap,yfyy.,reaLp#viacy 4iF, and,Iight.impacts. Also, as of today,.:the:.applieatts...:_;: and their architect refuse to share a copy of the plans. Second, the notice sent out by the Town for the upcoming hearing contained the project data from the previous submittal, amend failed to mention the variance being sought. • . Finally; . `th :story = poles=-for:.th *!:pr-oject blew .down in the recent: storm,: :thereby preventing certain neighbors from viewing them on the days they were available..When the poles were put back up, the most critical pole was moved by a full 4 -feet, which means the poles on site do not represent the project applied -for. This can easily cause confusion and undermines the purpose of story poles. It seems wasteful of the DRB's generously donated time to consider a project upon which action cannot be taken, but we hope the hearing will be useful in providing direction to the applicant that the current iteration is not approvable for the reasons discussed herein. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. CC: Jennifer Dunbar Very Truly Yours, al Riley F. Hurd III EXHIBIT NO. 7-2 T.Ltof December 2014 LAT:MIL i DRB, We are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to submit our concerns about the proposed additions to 2312 Spanish Trail Rd. Our home is across the street at 2375 Spanish Trail Rd. The most recent design has more impact to us than the first one, the two biggest concerns: 1. The number of windows on the Northern and Eastern sides have been significantly increased - roughly 65-200%. This is far too much glaze on these faces. 2. The main balcony still extends too far to the east. If adjusted roughly 6 ft, privacy would be maintained for both of us. 3. If the master closets were reduced from 12' to 6' long, the upper wall would be shifted to west and significantly reduce the view impact of the overall structure. Scott and Alyene Schneidewind 2375 Spanish Trail Rd Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO. 28 LATE MAJL # 1. January 12, 2015 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: J�tl� i 2 2015 I am writing in response and opposition to the currently proposed additions to 2312 Spanish Trail. My name is Jennifer Dunbar and I am the home owner of 2356 Spanish Trail, the home directly adjacent to the east of 2312 Spanish Trail. Amongst other "asks" the Wittenberg's are requesting approval for: • Setback variances because the exiting home's east setbacks are already non- conforming. The north elevation requires setback variances from Spanish Trail. • Maximizing the floor area ratio and creating a legal duplex with two dwellings • A total of 760 square feet of deck on the Vista Del Mar elevation, which includes 250 square feet on the basement (garden) level, 335 square feet of deck on the first level (where there is currently is none), 175 square feet on the second level (where there is currently is none). The proposed first level deck is eye to eye with our kitchen, kitchen deck, and west bedroom/office, and looks down over our backyard. The corners of the deck are 12' away from our kitchen deck and west bedroom/office, and 22' away from our kitchen. From the proposed deck you can look straight into our kitchen, kitchen deck, and west bedroom/office (which is used every day and night). • A punch out extension of the Vista Del Mar exterior wall of 7' at their living room with an east facing (towards us) fully glazed double door, and then the deck which extends a further 9' 10" for a total of 16'10". The second level deck is proposed to sit above the punch out. • Increasing interior square footage by flattening out the roofline from its current steep pitches. The east elevation of 2312 will become a true three story wall with several large windows facing our west elevation including our kitchen, kitchen deck, west bedroom/office and backyard, and only a few feet away from the property line. Our opposition to the proposed additions is primarily based on the egregious elimination of privacy and increase of noise. There is a total of 760 square feet of new decks proposed on the Vista Del Mar elevation within feet from our house. That is an enormous and excessive amount of deck. We would look straight at the first level deck from our kitchen, and they would look straight into our kitchen, kitchen deck, west bedroom/office and backyard. Our whole south and west elevations will be in their light at night when the decks and windows are lighted. Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT YBI T NO.I Pt coE(o The corners of the proposed first level deck are 12' from our kitchen deck and west bedroom, and 22' away from our kitchen. We already experience problematic noise issues between the houses because of nonconforming setbacks. We are simply too close as is. The proposed setback variances and the huge decks would only exacerbate an already bad situation. Additionally the Vista Del Mar elevation 7' punch out blocks sunlight to our kitchen, kitchen deck, and yard. Contrary to the computer generated shade studies, from our kitchen the sun currently moves behind the story poles at 4pm (and sets to the horizon between the poles). From the deck and bedroom the sun reaches the story poles at 2:30. The current drawings have the ingress and egress of the basement level second dwelling unit directed towards our kitchen, and the pathway to the garage is along our fence line. The deck to the front door punches out within a couple of feet of the fence line directly in front of my kitchen. This means as tenants come and go from the unit that they will be walking in front of our kitchen and deck just feet away. The proposed house at 2312 is being maxed out in size from all sides and height, and is being optimized as a two family dwelling duplex. I am realistic that sometime in the near future we may have two families as neighbors. Currently the tenants are a family of 6 residing in the first and second level. It is entirely conceivable that a family of 6 could live in the upstairs dwelling and another family in the downstairs dwelling. That is a lot of people crunched into nonconforming setbacks and massive outdoor deck structures. We have requested on several occasions that a landscaping plan be presented along with the proposed house drawings. We had our property surveyed last year and the current fence between 2312 and 2356 is not on the property line. The current fence is encroaching onto our property and should be removed. At that time, all of the overgrown ivy supported by the fence will likely die off leaving no screening between the houses. Landscaping and a proper fence is essential for separation between the two houses. Also, the glorious mature Magnolia tree seems to be slated for destruction as best we can tell from the drawings. The previous owners used to keep it topped, trimmed, and framed. It provides beautiful visual screening between 2356 Spanish Trail and Shelly's house to the south west of 2312 Spanish Trail. Without the Magnolia tree we look directly at Shelly's east elevation and windows from all south and west facing rooms in our house, including the living room (and vice versa of course). Our recommendations toward an amicable design are: 1. Lessen the first level Vista Del Mar elevation 7' punch out to 3' thereby providing support for a small deck off the master bedroom second level. Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT NO. 29_ pc zoeCo 2. Reduce the first level deck square footage to a reasonable size by 60%. 3. Have Nana type doors that lead from the living room to the reasonable deck rather than glazed doors that face our house. (The current design has people directed at our house as they enter the deck). 4. Remove the first level deck adjacent to bedroom 2. 5. Provide ingress/egress and deck for the basement level dwelling on the south west side of the lot rather than the east side. 6. Remove and/or reduce the size of east facing glazing, especially the large window located in the master bedroom, and the windows at bedroom 2 and bedroom 3. The fully glazed double door on the basement level should be removed entirely. 7. Adhere to setback requirements. 8. Provide a landscape plan that effectively screens the privacy corridors and active use areas of the properties and that its completion is tied to the final condition of occupancy approval. 9. Provide assurances that exterior lighting will not be invasive. Thank you for your time and consideration. Warm regards, Jennifer Dunbar (415)272-4635 2356 Spanish Trail Homeowner Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT NO. 2c( P, vw (o EXHIBIT NO, Zq Li OF 2312 Spanish Trails Story Poles - Top Photo (deck), bottom photo (kitchen) 2356 Spanish Trail Story Poles and Afternoon Shading EXHIBIT NO, cE z N c• af-VW. 614 • • — • ii.44) •-) ••• .5411.1-41147.- ' 1V1GJJ¢�li &Juin' 12 January 2015 TO: Tiburon Design Review Board FROM: James Browne 2490 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, Ca. 94920-1926 SUBJECT: Renovations and Additions 2312 Spanish Trail Road APN: 059-201-32 JAN i% 2015 LATE main ad—. After visually checking this site and reviewing The proposed 'Renovation and Addition Plans', I've come to the conclusion that a great deal of 'bulk' would be added to the existing structure. Some of this additional 'bulk 'is located in areas that currently do not meet current R-2 setback requirements. Is it to be the policy of Tiburon's DRB that an existing structure's non conforming 'footprint' can be exploited with new construction? Respectfuliyl,t) James Brow; e (415) 435 3491 EXHIBIT NO. L) https://blu169.mail.live.com/mai1IRteFrameResources.aspx?n=17.4.8506.6000&ch=18231... 1/12/2015 LATS MAI L # � tf Ragghianti (Freitas LLP Riley F. Hurd 11I rhurd@rflawIlp.com January 14, 2015 Via E -Mail Only (duwatrous@totmioftiburon.org) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Jo 14 Lli•t5 Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415A 53.8269 www.rflawllp.com Re: 2312 Spanish Trail - File No. 21426 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Our office continues to represent Jennifer Dunbar in connection with the above - referenced application. Ms. Dunbar is the owner of the home at 2356 Spanish Trail ("Dunbar Property"), which is directly to the East of the proposed project. Hopefully, the DRB has had the opportunity to read Ms. Dunbar's letter of January 12th, which very clearly sets forth the significant remaining design issues with the proposed project, and also proposes resolutions for these issues. It appears the remaining issues are primarily the result of 2 main issues: 1) continuing to seek a max -FAR house on a lot that doesn't support it, and 2) proposing very large deck spaces at the expense of the view and privacy corridors from the Dunbar residence. We again asked to speak with the applicants before resubmittal of any plans, this request was again denied. The primary purpose of this letter is to address a singular legal issue involved in the consideration of this project, and that is the variance being requested to encroach into the sideyard setback toward the Dunbar residence. The required legal findings for this variance cannot be made. Furthermore, analyzing the setback issues has been a moving target, as the existing project data has been changing from submittal to submittal. The applicant should be asked to clarify the current distance of the existing structure from the property line, as their first submittal indicated the existing right sideyard setback was 6' 2" and left was 4' 5". The latest proposal, however, states that the existing right sideyard setback is 5'10" and the left is 5'8". These are significant discrepancies given the location of the house and need to be resolved in advance of any meaningful consideration of the variance issue. EXI-IIBIT NO, 31 oF l� tf Ragghianti Freitas LLP January 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Variances The findings for a sideyard setback variance as set forth in Code section 16-52.030(E) cannot be made. Staff's proposed findings ignore crucial parts of the finding language and/or site conditions and impacts. The findings, staff's proposal, and our response, are set forth below: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this zoning ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; a. STAFF'S RESPONSE: "The subject property has an unusual shape and is very narrow at the location of the existing structure on the site, resulting in existing nonconforming side yard and front yard setbacks. These are special circumstances applicable to the property." b. COMMENT: Staff's response ignores a critical portion of this finding that, without the variance, the applicant would be "deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity." The proposed max -FAR house is significantly larger than most homes in the neighborhood. This is a privilege well beyond those enjoyed by "other properties in the vicinity," and not one that warrants a variance. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; a. STAFF'S RESPONSE: Numerous other homes in the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon neighborhood have nonconforming setbacks or have been granted variances for reduced setbacks. b. COMMENT: We assume this to be true. 3. The strict application of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of EXHIBIT NO. 3 '',2-oF Ra` ghianti Freitas LLP January 14, 2015 Page 3 of 4 the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance; and a. STAFF'S RESPONSE: "Currently, the existing structure is located within both side yard setbacks and the front yard setback. The Design Review Board has often determined that it would be an uiuiecessary physical hardship to require additions to such structures to have to step in to comply with the required side yard setbacks instead of following the alignment of the existing building. The location of the proposed additions further into the required front yard setback is necessary due to the practical difficulty caused by additions to the rear of the building which would intrude into views for neighboring residences." b. COMMENT: Again, a rather major portion of this required finding is ignored. The prior owners of the applicants' property created the supposed hardship (i.e. building in the setbacks), this is the very definition of a self-created hardship. It is actually not that difficult to respect, at least, the sideyard setbacks in creating this addition. This respect is critical here given the orientation and location of surrounding properties. If any interplay between two homes mandated at least minimum setback adherence, this is it. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. a. STAFF RESPONSE: "As noted above, the revised project design would reduce the visible mass of the building when viewed from the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail when compared to the original project design. The reduced size of the first floor deck should limit any potential privacy issues from the project. As a result, the project would not appear to be injurious to other properties in the vicinity." b. COMMENT: First and foremost, comparisons to the original design of this remodel really have no place in the discussion. The original design was objectively unprovable and rather insulting. As noted in the January 12th letter from Ms. Dunbar, the current design is still incredibly injurious to the Dunbar Property in the form of privacy impacts, and obstruction of air and light. EXHIBIT NO. 3 1 L Ragghianti IFreitas LLP January 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4 At least 3 of the conjunctive findings for a variance cannot be made and this should come as no surprise to the applicants. The minutes from the previous DRB consideration of this matter contain the following quotes: BOARDMEMBER KRICENSKY: "He said that setback variances are often granted for utilizing existing foundations, but this project would involve new construction beyond the existing footprint and he cannot support the variance request for that reason." CHAIR COUSINS: "He could not support the variances..." Any new improvements should be required to conform with the Town's Code. The variance issues addressed herein, and the significant impacts identified in Ms. Dunbar's letter, suggest that the applicants need to take yet another look at the design of this project. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. CC: Jennifer Dunbar Very Truly(Yours, 1 ... 1E - Riley F. Hurd III EXHIBIT NO. S Dan Watrous LATE FAIL i, From: Sent: To: Drew, Lawrence [Lawrence.Drew@ucsf.edu) Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:51 AM Dan Watrous „IAN ! :a L[I;� I have lived in the house directly above 2312 spanish trail for 45 years and wish to express my opposition to the proposed addition to that house. The proposal indicates an excessive 50% increase in gross floor area and already has several setback variances. The proposal will allow additional occupants and will adversely impact an existing parking danger on a narrow street. The current parking by the single family occupants will be exacerbated by the addition of a second family and pose further impediments to fire engines etc should they be needed. Finally if the trees bordering spanish trail are removed or reduced our views will be adversely affected. Please convey my objections to the members of the design review board. Sent from my iPad 1 EXHIBIT NO. 3+Z Dan Watrous From: Celia DeMartini [celiadm@pacbell.net] ant: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:43 PM 0: Dan Watrous Subject: Proposed project 2312 Spanish Trail Dear Mr. Watrous and the To Council: I am submitting a letter concerning the proposed project at 2312 Spanish Trail. I am one of the owner Trustees of 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane in Tiburon and a neighbor to the east of the proposed project. I have been in discussion with Jennifer Dunbar and Richard Wodehouse about the project and attended the meetings of the Design Review Committee concerning 2312 Spanish Trail. I agree with Jennifer and Richard's assessment of the handling of the proposed project as it proceeded through Design Review. The conclusion of the last meeting seemed inconclusive, confusing and abrupt. I have had experience working with Jennifer and Richard and found them to be easy to work with. We are working towards rectifying a lot line issue that has been in existence since the lots at 2356 Spanish Trail and 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane were established in the 1950's. This lot line issue has been a concern of mine and I am happy that we are working this out compatibly. I believe in the matter of 2312 Jennifer and Richard have been very willing to cooperate with the Wittenbergs with the goal of developing 2312 in a manner that preserves privacy, quiet enjoyment, views and the other amenities of life in Tiburon for the occupants of both properties. Sincerely, Celia DeMartini Trustee 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 415-924-8363 415-225-1793 EXFIIBIT N0. 33 March 9, 2015 Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 2312 Spanish Trail Wittenberg Design Approval Response to Appeal Hearing Date: March 18, 2015 Dear Mayor Doyle and Members of the Town Council: It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in conflict with our adjacent neighbors at 2356 Spanish Trail concerning our plans to remodel our home. We believe that we have presented a beautiful, tasteful design that appropriately respects the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The Design Review Board unanimously agreed. From the outset, we reasonably attempted to avoid any issue with our neighbors by meeting with appellant Richard Wodehouse, and then specifically limiting the location of our remodel based on our understanding of what he had requested.1 It is stunning to us that we are now responding to an appeal that is focused upon a single deck that blocks no views, and which -- in an effort to appease the appellants -- we reduced from its original scope so that it is now merely a modest platform. The appellants' residence at 2356 Spanish Trail has an unusual alignment to the lot: it is not parallel to the side yards, but instead juts at an angle so that the southwest corner of the structure is particularly close to the southeast corner of 2312 Spanish Trail. At that corner of 2356 there is a small covered deck, which, until recently, appeared to be used solely as a sleeping area for the appellants' dogs. Late last month, the appellants suddenly installed a hot tub on that deck, as if to "stake a claim." Notwithstanding the newly -placed hot tub, that deck and the bedroom at that location is a "less actively used area of the dwelling;" the appellants' primary living area is 1We offered to meet with appellant Jennifer Dunbar as well, but this did not occur. Instead, Mr. Wodehouse said he would discuss the matter with Ms. Dunbar, which we presumed he would do. We were, therefore, surprised when Ms. Dunbar arrived -- accompanied by an attorney -- at the DRB hearing. EXHIBIT NO. ..3 y p, c*k_l c) Tiburon Town Council March 9, 2015 Page 2 of 7 located at the far side of their property. (See Principle 7, Goal 3 of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, referred to herein as "the Guidelines.") The proximity of 2356 Spanish Trail to 2312 Spanish Trail at that one corner is an existing condition that pre -dated our ownership and that of the appellants. According to the appellant, "we can already see and hear almost everything that goes on next door."2 (Appeal letter at p. 2.) If we were to make no changes to our home, this long- standing condition would continue. Nothing we have proposed -- including the small bedroom deck -- will materially change this existing condition and, in fact, will likely improve it. We agree with appellants that the orientation of our respective homes results in less privacy than might, for example, be enjoyed by residents of adjacent ranches in Point Reyes. But, nevertheless, we chose to live here because we love Tiburon, we love the property at 2312 Spanish Trail, and we are comfortable living in the somewhat densely developed neighborhood that is Old Town. The appellants chose to live here too, and it is unreasonable and unfair for them now to oppose our project because of their claimed privacy concern. The Appeal Actually Only Concerns A Single Bedroom Deck. Our now -approved design is the product of three DRB hearings and several re- designs that addressed various demands raised by the appellant. At this juncture, the appellants are reduced solely to complaining about our proposed small guest bedroom deck. We have already substantially reduced this deck in an effort to satisfy the appellants. Specifically, the deck extended about 17' from the bedroom's south -facing wall but was reduced to 4'8"; it being nothing more than a platform to enable a door to open onto it and to enable a guest to step out to briefly enjoy the view. Yet, our neighbors now demand that this deck be eliminated entirely. A recent email exchange between the appellants' attorney and our architect confirms that this appeal only concerns this small area of bedroom deck. (See Exh. 1, attached hereto.) The attorney threatens an appeal unless the bedroom deck is eliminated. Because we refused to submit to this demand, we (and the Town Council) are now confronted with this appeal. The appeal is dressed up with other additional arguments, but it is truly only about the bedroom deck. 2 The proximity of the homes is obvious, but this statement is hyperbole. We are seniors rapidly approaching our 70s. The sight and sound that we would generate while outside on our existing deck is that typically associated with people drinking coffee, reading the newspaper, and enjoying the view of the Bay. EXHIBIT NO. 4 ?,2_ D Tiburon Town Council March 9, 2015 Page 3 of 7 During the design process, we made numerous substantial concessions to (attempt to) appease our neighbors, as discussed further below. At a certain point, it becomes no longer possible to continue attempting to accommodate a neighbor who seeks to design your house for you. We have reached that tipping point when it comes to our guest bedroom deck. It is a modest building feature that will block no views nor create any new privacy impacts to the appellants. The Approved Design Is The Product Of A Series Of Concessions That Already Have Been Made For The Appellants. Prior to commencing the design of our project, we sought advice from Town staff who suggested that we likely would be granted approval if we were to expand the existing structure by stepping down the sloping hillside toward Vista Del Mar. (This was good advice consistent with the Guidelines at Goal 1, Principle 2.) We also sought input from the downslope owner of 2300 Vista Del Mar, who assured us that any of her concerns could be addressed simply by landscape screening for privacy. We also met with appellant Wodehouse who said that so long as we did not extend the new structure beyond a magnolia tree located 18' 6" from the rear wall of the existing structure, our remodel would be acceptable because it would not block any significant view corridor enjoyed by the Wodehouse/Dunbar property. Based upon this input, we began developing a design for expansion, stepping the addition away from 2356 Spanish Trail and downward along the sloping hillside. In our initial design, the extension of the south wall of the structure was confined within the area marked by the magnolia tree. From that point we proposed a mid-level deck extending another 10 feet south. Thus, we believed that our proposed design appropriately responded to the request made by Mr. Wodehouse. (A copy of this initial design is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) We then submitted our design to the Planning Department and erected story poles. We next met again with Mr. Wodehouse, and offered to meet with Ms. Dunbar, prior to our first DRB meeting of November 6, 2014. Mr. Wodehouse expressed no objection to our proposal, and told us that he would discuss it with Ms. Dunbar. We heard nothing further, and, therefore, assumed that both residents of 2356 Spanish Trail were happy with our proposed design. We were surprised, therefore, when Ms. Dunbar appeared at the DRB hearing with an attorney. EXHIBIT NO 3 p Tiburon Town Council March 9, 2015 Page 4 of 7 The DRB members suggested that our initial proposal was too large, specifically noting that our requested FAR variance was inappropriate, given the proximity of our home to 2356 Spanish Trail. The DRB continued our application to their December 18, meeting. Prior to that meeting, we hired architect Hank Bruce and worked with him to create a design that not only was smaller but which also relocated a portion of the project to the north (toward Spanish Trail), and reduced the south wall from 18 feet to 7 feet, thus substantially reducing any impact that the structure would impose upon 2356 Spanish Trail. (A copy of this second proposal is attached as Exhibit 3.) The revised project no longer required a FAR variance, and included total lot coverage of only 20 percent where a maximum of 35 percent is allowable. Staff correctly noted that a front yard setback variance would be required to accommodate the relocation of the property toward Spanish Trail. As our revised application did not include that necessary variance application, the DRB could not make a final decision at its December 18th meeting. Nevertheless, staff encouraged that we move forward with the public hearing so that we could be guided by any comments from the members of the DRB. We appreciated this opportunity to gain additional input from the DRB. The DRB specifically made suggestions about the deck that is now the subject of this appeal. In substance, the DRB members suggested that we reduce the size of the deck -- which extends from the south -facing bedroom on the mid - floor level — and replace the sliding door that leads to it with a fixed window (even though the current deck is 12'6" X 7'10" and includes an easterly -facing sliding door). The DRB felt that these changes would minimize the potential that any on -deck activities would impact Ms. Dunbar and Mr. Wodehouse. We found this guidance to be helpful, made the suggested changes, and moved ahead, together with Mr. Bruce, to create yet a third design which the DRB reviewed at its January 15, 2015 meeting. (See Exhibit 4, attached.) At that meeting, the DRB members thanked us for having responded to their suggestions, and stated that our latest design was a vast improvement over our previous submittals. One of the DRB members voted to approve our application without modification. The remaining two DRB members acknowledged that our revised design blocked none of appellants' views whatsoever. Nevertheless, they believed that the mid-level deck extending from the family room (next to the bedroom deck discussed above) remained a visible feature to those residing at 2356 Spanish Trail. They suggested that they could approve the design if the southern edge of the family room structure was pulled back by an additional four feet, which would reduce the outer edge of the deck by that same amount. We accepted this recommendation. The DRB EXHIBIT NO. _ e ot-t Tiburon Town Council March 9, 2015 Page 5 of 7 then unanimously approved our project. A copy of our final approved plan -- which includes the referenced four foot "pullback" -- is attached as Exhibit 5. Appellants now suggest that the DRB members were "confused" when they unanimously voted to grant approval. (Appeal letter, p. 2.) This assertion is insulting to the DRB. The DRB made its well -considered decision after two meetings at which it heard oral presentations from Ms. Dunbar, her attorney, and members of the community; and also reviewed written correspondence that was submitted into the record. It is Ms. Dunbar's right to disagree with the DRB's decision, but it is ridiculous for her to suggest that it was a "mistake." The Alleged Grounds For The Appeal Are Insupportable. As discussed above, this "dispute" has now been reduced to the appellants' complaint about a single deck. Appellants have cloaked their appeal, however, with the following various theories, none of which constitute a basis to reverse the DRB's decision: • The house is too big. This is the appellants' subjective belief. In fact, the approved project is approximately 100sq.fi. below the floor area ratio limit and lot coverage is only approximately 20%. • "The looming nature is driven by the roof design." Appellants complain about the new "flatter" roof, when, in fact, the new design is more consistent than is the existing structure with the Guidelines at Goal 1, Principle 4. The roof has also been pulled back by eliminating a 14' X 20' section facing 2356 Spanish Trail to reduce its mass even though doing so reduces the master bedroom usable space. The flatter roof also lessens its impact on our neighbors to the north who view the bay over our home. • "The bulky new structure will greatly block our afternoon sun." The appellants have acknowledged -- as they must -- that the approved design blocks no views. They attempt to support their argument with photos that were taken shortly before sunset in Iate December, when the days are at their shortest. In contrast, Mr. Bruce provided the DRB with a computer-generated solar study that provides a substantially more fair depiction. (See Exhibit 6, attached hereto.)3 'Our solar study does not depict the additional shadow effect caused by existing trees, particularly a large pine located at 2309 Spanish Trail and other landscape plantings EXHIBIT NO_ Tiburon Town Council March 9, 2015 Page 6 of 7 • The current fence encroaches by 18 inches. In fact, in some areas the long- standing existing fence encroaches onto our property, and at other locations onto the appellants' property. Also, a portion of the appellants' roof encroaches over the boundary line onto our property. It is our understanding that the fence has been at its present location for decades. It has no relevance to our design approval. Finally, appellants' attorney has submitted a lengthy letter that exclusively challenges the side yard setback variance that was recommended by staff and approved by the DRB.4 The letter ignores that such variances commonly are granted to respond to various site conditions. If appellants and their attorney were actually to file a lawsuit challenging the Town's grant of a variance, the chance that a local court would disturb the Council's decision is virtually nil. We are dismayed by the local practice of injecting lawyers into residential design decisions that do not, in fact, involve valid legal issues. It is our impression that the hired lawyer will simply advocate for whatever position his current client is paying him to argue. Thus, the same lawyer will, for example, advocate on behalf of an applicant for the grant of a variance, and then, on another project, oppose his own earlier position when he argues, on behalf of objecting neighbors, against a variance. Such inconsistent advocacy is not persuasive. The Town has a Town Attorney, as well as professional planning staff, who certainly would advise the Council if they believed that the near 2356 Spanish Trail. Our study illustrates conditions near sunset on the Equinox (an average condition) and at the Solstice (when the appellants' decks presumably would be at their highest level of use). The study shows that the kitchen window at 2356 Spanish Trail would be minimally impacted for part of the year -- and even then only just before sunset -- when the house already is likely in being shadowed by the aforementioned pine tree. During the summer months, our project will have no effect on the sunlight reaching the windows and decks at appellants' property. 4 As was noted by staff, the Town routinely approves side yard setback variances to allow existing structural side walls to extend linearly to prevent additions from appearing as if they were simply tacked onto an existing structure. Indeed, the DRB recently granted such a side yard setback variance to 2300 Vista Del Mar. Moreover, our approved design is the result of merely enclosing a pre-existing deck so that the overall structure will not intrude further into the side yard. EXHIBIT NO. p, cva-g( Tiburon Town Council March 9, 2015 Page 7 of 7 proposed variance was unlawful. If the Councilmembers have any questions or concerns, we respectfully suggest that they should rely upon the advice of the Town Attorney, and not be intimidated by others who casually threaten litigation in an effort to obtain the result sought by their clients. Conclusion. We appreciate the time and effort that the Town staff and Design Review Board have devoted to our project. Despite the current conflict, after this process is concluded, we hope to enjoy a peaceful and friendly relationship with our neighbors at 2356 Spanish Trail. While we sincerely believe that their appeal has no merit whatsoever, their resistance to change occurring at the property next door is not unusual. It is time, however, for our very old home to be updated and improved. We are excited to begin the process of building our beautiful new residence. We respectfully request that the Town Council deny the appeal, affirm the decision of the Design Review Board, and allow us to proceed with our project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, r Malcolm Wittenberg EXHIBIT N4. p,7cpur) EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT NO. 3 `t Malcolm Wittenberg From: Henry Bruce <hank@hankbrucearchitects.com> Sent: ' Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:09 PM To: Malcolm Wittenberg Subject: Fwd: Spanish Trail Attachments: Deck removal area.pdf Mal: Here is the email from Riley and a draft of my proposed response what do you say? Riley: This matter is a major issue for my clients also. The deck area in question has been fully discussed at two hearings and has been included in the Board approval of 13 Jan 2015.While we, too, do not want to see an appeal filed; they do not wish to remove it. Hank Forwarded Message Subject:Spanish Trail Date:Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:44:56 +0000 From:Riley Hurd <rhurd@rflawllp.com> To:hankPhankbrucearchitects.com <hank@hankbrucearchitects.com> Hank, I am reaching out to you in an effort to avoid an appeal of this matter to the Town Council. We believe the findings were not appropriately made for the cross -hatched area in the attached PDF and intend to appeal this issue, as well as the variances and other impacts of the project, to the Town Council. 2 of the 3 DRB members agreed about the impacts of the 2"d bedroom deck area, but it did not make it into the conditions. I wanted to reach out to you in advance of the appeal and request the removal of this area. I know months more of this tumultuous process is not desired by either side, but this is a major issue for my clients. Let me know. Thanks. Riley F. Hurd III, Esq. RAGGHIANTI I FREITAS LLP 1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel: 415.453.9433 ext. 126 Fax: 415.453.8269 Email: rhurd@rflawllp.com Website: http://www.rflawllp.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing, 1 EXHIBIT NO. �� or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644.) If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender at: rhurd@rflawllp.cam<mailto:rhurdL rflawIlp.com>. Thank you. EXHIBIT NO. l Rmovaelcnc end AddltIonc t0 Trr. Unto,bers Rooldarcr 2312 5penlsn Troll Road Tlbu-on, CA 94920 .4.?)L 059-70;-32 Rank ➢ru . Architects 11 VAb oe:..o w•uu EXHIBIT NO L_ y....... \ NO _.._. III . c- ... ma 1..!...) 7, ...�. : , �Ir : I !� e�• I A `...._...._� E 1 1g rp : A � t I nI i a Rmovaelcnc end AddltIonc t0 Trr. Unto,bers Rooldarcr 2312 5penlsn Troll Road Tlbu-on, CA 94920 .4.?)L 059-70;-32 Rank ➢ru . Architects 11 VAb oe:..o w•uu EXHIBIT NO L_ EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT NO.'Sq t� Cr --0 A csa on WIT 01.1 THE \VI 1 ,4ff 0 17\14 Li' 2312 Sl'P. 1 I1 TRAIL 1747AO , Tll3uN 2H, CP\ 'IA 12O 1.291, 2 34•14-.14 bE511.1-LG ra p6 2 C II o1i Pfk'. -1 moi 7 11 ih% Cm Ski r u A csa on WIT 01.1 THE \VI 1 ,4ff 0 17\14 Li' 2312 Sl'P. 1 I1 TRAIL 1747AO , Tll3uN 2H, CP\ 'IA 12O 1.291, 2 34•14-.14 bE511.1-LG ra p6 2 C II o1i Pfk'. -1 moi 7 11 ih% Cm Ski r 7q I� 24.0„ 31'-[a'= X s 50-4,' A 1.! 11,11.11, OQ 'H''er • LW6^Yn677 ao1"5'6-IWIW 51(p r V.I.P rE-MGJ L A001-100 role. Thr \VI T I ENS rAtAI LT 212 r= TIS[_-iK01•1, CA 9.4-12 AP .2A, 52 14. IZ•KE (DELI oN, LLG rano,' I�i2 -1 � n�lcly OA- 941 15+:47-(&Av;Iler • • aavom,oa.�xa�rsac• rare -� - s — wavea�ve_z.�www.v - - �--nuo.-�s,�^rmeemazrwa'«owwayxamza-.suer1.s:-+r.:r:aw:xaa.•••..u•••-ru-w...s�>z+.x /W 0 qr 0 .. • rE-MGJ L A001-100 role. Thr \VI T I ENS rAtAI LT 212 r= TIS[_-iK01•1, CA 9.4-12 AP .2A, 52 14. IZ•KE (DELI oN, LLG rano,' I�i2 -1 � n�lcly OA- 941 15+:47-(&Av;Iler • • aavom,oa.�xa�rsac• rare -� - s — wavea�ve_z.�www.v - - �--nuo.-�s,�^rmeemazrwa'«owwayxamza-.suer1.s:-+r.:r:aw:xaa.•••..u•••-ru-w...s�>z+.x /W 0 qr 0 EXHIBIT 3 EXxiIBIT NO. O' e c Renovations and AdditIonn to The Wittenberg Residence 2312 Spanish -Trail Road Tiburon, CA 94920 059-201-32 Bank Bruce Architects LI r 1. SI. rS , C. 91920 rec ..0 4s-9111 Lm O m N r 0 j (fn 3 ()1 m (1). 0 3 c 0 0-5 0 co ( 0 1 0 3 3- :s1 s m (D 1L r 0 3 Renovations and Addltione to l- Witlenber Residence 2312 Spanish -Trail Road Tiburon, GA 94920 A.PN: 059-201-32 Hank Brucr Architects 25 a Woe, C1 91920 t ;�.1 11! 9:5-911! J L 11 Renovations and Additions to The Wittenberg Residence 2312 5panish1rail Road Tiburon, CA 94920 APIC: 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects 113 Ule. 51w Iwm. 4 94920 11F0am na 135-9114 EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBIT NO. _ rn u P 9 i Pall ;1 MI D � at6 dal R3 a tSgAS 3 el; a§ 14 o 11 ^'111 Orel; D �>,°'s;�Pill wa ¢ iR a t tt Fpk op, pp 'S{ Z g -AVa Y b sA C,.Q2£A al G) 2 Fpg 0i -1 gigFpEtI 3 3 El g FA ;'we -1 Z Ab a R$ m R as fit o �i �` I R lila —I :iRA; 9$i 41 g w $R 6 :e8 Pil SaION J2I .Ls1a aNi4 NO2411e11. • NV"Id a1IS 039OdO21d V 3&zG is- i- 51 a5° : a a " m F Renovation& and Additions to The Wittenberg Reeldace 2312 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, GA 94920 APN: 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects 95 9 Yaw 51,.1 ia.warA CA 91920 M1Nnr u9 45-9.15 4 STORY POLE LEGEND TTAIGAL &TORP POLE T :PPT Wggg,Et -4444444 Foroontsa .9,1• ABOVE 7.A, FLR .10'-6• ABOVE 21.41) FLR •9'-1• ABOVE 2ND FLR .9'-1• ABOVE 7NO FLR •10'-6• A8OVE am FLR .3•-6• ABOVE IBT FLR 3'•i' ABO.E I8T PLR rn u P 9 i Pall ;1 MI D � at6 dal R3 a tSgAS 3 el; a§ 14 o 11 ^'111 Orel; D �>,°'s;�Pill wa ¢ iR a t tt Fpk op, pp 'S{ Z g -AVa Y b sA C,.Q2£A al G) 2 Fpg 0i -1 gigFpEtI 3 3 El g FA ;'we -1 Z Ab a R$ m R as fit o �i �` I R lila —I :iRA; 9$i 41 g w $R 6 :e8 Pil SaION J2I .Ls1a aNi4 NO2411e11. • NV"Id a1IS 039OdO21d V 3&zG is- i- 51 a5° : a a " m F Renovation& and Additions to The Wittenberg Reeldace 2312 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, GA 94920 APN: 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects 95 9 Yaw 51,.1 ia.warA CA 91920 M1Nnr u9 45-9.15 -0 m 0 I] z 0 -rn r 0 0 z 1> 0 e 1> z Renov81.1ons and Abolitions to The Wittenberg Residence 2I2 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, CA 94920 APN, 099-201-32 Hank Brue. Architects 1,113 IM. Wil Tadn. CA 911120 TS.. 115 435-9116 0 • 5 i7 0 4. Renovations and AdditIons to The Wittenberg, Residence 2312 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, CA 94920 A.PN.: 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects 95Bvan Amt Paws CA 91920 Itle:be W 40-9118 uoi;ena13 Jew dap it till 1 I 1 alj 1! gg gg s d s D : u b Q S e' n u_ o r. y p b.. a n �• F u 0 p y 5 6 RenovatIons and Additions to T}n Wittenberg Residence 2312 SpenPohfre 11 Road Tiburon, CA 94920 APIC: 059-201-32 '¢ p o E o I.': .0 f $ nw' s a I C ; 5 c k . i p 'f }leak Bruce Architects Taa V. Sup 1.7.: 415 411-911c " L> • ji:l:ltJt I 11; illlll��l 111. 111 ,1* MTIA, 1111 1111 L MM dx N N rns- w w 0 3 0 0 Renovetiona and Addition's to The Wittenberg Reeldence 2312 5panlehTrall Road Tiburon, CA 94920 APIC: 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects ro.v , 949 fro "0415-9114 2 • ON- Th�-\VIS IrHbtic rA1tLY 131 Z Or.N-4is-i TI JL �d .T115( -I -L, GA\ 9A 120 •rr t z -FLAWS 13Y RFs.W j2671 • 5Pv�1 MANCA 9CZ CA.941a. -410 64o. 0 a 4 s 'E ON- Th�-\VIS IrHbtic rA1tLY 131 Z Or.N-4is-i TI JL �d .T115( -I -L, GA\ 9A 120 •rr t z -FLAWS 13Y RFs.W j2671 • 5Pv�1 MANCA 9CZ CA.941a. -410 64o. 0 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT NO. 3 P. z(fl bp. ei6 O -,PV aW u— STORY POLE LEGEND TYPICAL STORY POLE illiUli`� PmaPAPP POLE No. STORY POLE TOP ELEVATION 9 A'•I• ABOVE TNO FLR O tea;- n ll AAAA.,, ff Rik Renovations and Additions to The Wittenberg Residence 2312 5panleh frau Road Tiburon, CA 94920 APIC: 059-201-32 22 aRB n0 Or„ r Rank Bruce Architects lcuuu. 4 94990 Wow. 413 133-9131 p ■ 11111 1 1 1 1.1 1 11 I'. l.J..b z 9 'CP \\JZN fC 0 Renovations and AddltIone to The Wittenberg Residence 2312 5penlsh rrall Road Tiburon, CA 94920. A.PN.= 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects 33 B am SUM Timm. CA 94920 1•49nm4 419 430.9115 r 8 - a r 4 IiD � o; n v e y b'�' b ^ e s 6 v P x - 9 - jJ t -C ' Renovations and Additions to T} WittenbergResidence 7317 Spanish-Trail Road Tiburon, GA 9A970 APTI.: 059-701-37 c� tit S �'.. '.° b L ®g. h; r Cs, "s „ Q ° 3, ? § ' •, I • =.a Hent. Le s Archltect5 ]J6 Wm yrrtl loam La sLm iM�w t�1 43:-9�IL r I. • �'� ''I� r- 41/ HMI z rO N 7.1 S m 0 VIII I I I I I a❑❑ MID 1111 w 0' e b: w• O Renovations and Additions to The Wittenberg. Residence 2312 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, CA 94.320 APIC: 059-201-32 Hank Bruce Architects Uwe,, a 9,920 lame,. as 435-8111 ■ NOS Ig" Ib O O Renovations and Additions to The Wittenberg. Residence 2312 Spanish -Trail Road Tiburon, GA 94920 APN: 039-201-32 rnm x N N 1- rnf 0 b S,i ns 'sG Hent, Bruce Architects 73 B Yon SVlrl wo U Nam iptm, ni U) -Yue F ■ fr 6 3 P % _4 at tzi tri z 0 #IA MO a • it 1PM vr.4" ?LAWS 13-r VITTCH5tic r-A/11L2 er4. ,T113Linaki, CA\ 141267 mm Pe? avx tt;71 Dts1.124-4, I=V0-4090.9, 141155- r14 -a.1*. &Lie- iicp 11111111 --C EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT NO. 3 , 0-1 -o a tli VI i { F-4 eri H 1-3z 0 m X_ z G) m0 z 0 X i i> N 5- m I) N N W 1‘6) CIAsoc:101(=1 dasoc1o1c:1 • I1 IST FLOOR FLOOR - BASEMENT SITE SECTION rEs • INt 50 moon 7E) r TO UT FLOOR o. ■ •E.. rv: a<s=•-.Ew- SCALE: t9-.1••82- TIBURON FIRE DISTRICT NOTES I. FIRE / LIFE SAFETY A. FIFA SPRINKLER: 1. PROv1DE AUTOMATIC SPRNKLER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM 1480 NOJT TME NEW a EXISTING HOUSE CONTRACTOR 514ALL SUBMIT SFRINCLER PLANS N CALUCL4TION5 WITH FIRE ErGINEER STAMP TO 7178 BUILDING DEPT. FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. FIRE SPRIKI.ER PLANS AN, CALCULATIONS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWINCUNER5 NAME. 2) PROJECT ADDRESS 3) 51TE APN, 4) Fns ENGINEERS STAMP • SIGNATURE OR C•16 CONTRACTOR 574715 a 51GN4TURE. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFr ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY AND UPGRADE THE SERVICE 5125 AS 20'97 3. S4401.10 A NEW WATER SERVICE BE RECURRED. T.5 CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCRO4CWIENT PEf 927 FOR ANY WORD RECUIRED IN T 1E ROADWAY R*HT CF WAY TO INSTALL THE NEW SPRINKLER WATER SERVICE. B. FIRE STOPPING) 5AF1NO. 2. PROVIDE 2x NOMINAL 501.10 5000 F)RE)ORAFT STOPS AT 10' O.C. MAX. AT ALL CEILINGS. FURRED DOWN CEILINGS, SHOWER SOFFITS-. CEILING SOFFITS 2 CONCEALED RAFTER OPENINGS C. DETECTORS 4 AL4R15 I. PROVIDE CC.TBINATION 57OKE s DAIMON MONOXIDE DETECTION ALARMS: ALARMS SHALL BE APPROVED UL LISTED DEVICES ALARMS SHALL BE P0IIERED B7 2402578 WIRING W) A BATTERY BACKUP w4EN MORE THAN ONE 41451 15 USED THE 4L41515 SHALL BE 1NTERCON ECTED ALARIS 5144LL BE INSTALLED M THE FOLLOWING AREAS: 0227510E OF E4DH SEPARATE DWELLING UNIT SLEEPING AREA M THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF Tt5 550130 M/5k ON EVERT LEVEL 08 A DWELLING 22417 INCLUDING BASEMENTS IN EVERY BEDROOM OR SLEEPING ROOM)4REA vEGETATION MANAGEMENT NOTES PYROPHYTIC PLANTS: rPIROWBITED w1TUIN SO' OF HOUSE; a) Remove all Pyrophytle plants 0111 N. 50' or the structure b) Partial list of prohlblled PyrophytIcc plants: LLL1n Mme Ceminon name Able. spp. Frr trees 1.785064007 fa•ciculalue Chanl.6 Gecisauaod 47800 00 ..20•par.Iro11um Rad&0t Arctostaphylo. spp. Ma.caNtas Arleme:Ma calacmca 6ag8bru>h Bacchant. epp. Coyote brush 6061,6.dlelsee Bamboo Cortadrla Jubata Juba6a grass Cortaderla .e41oa5 Pampas grass Cuptessus app. Gypsums species Cy1.1122 scoparN8 600200 %soo0 Eucalyptus app. Eucalyptus species &nista m0xep4••ule11• French broom Juniper. edsmur1. Common Juniper Jumperue 8760207 Weep4•9 127155) Latin Mme Common name 50,61,etu5 sop. Fountaingrasses P207a app. 5pruees Plrws atteruasa Knpbccne 5175 Psu• ceultesl Castles pine Ps1. =rle4ta Shop pine Pn7. Maolate Monterey pine Sero 5abmlana Way pine P147e •e•7tlFe Porn pre Pinus s5I00avls Scot. one PIM. Leneyaa Terrey pine Res arlros official% Rosemary 5�611161 J1leeun Spanish broom Th.Ja .pp. 4r007)01160 Tauga .pp. 444710. tug: eurepea Bor.. STORY POLE LEGEND e /€) TYPICAL STORY POLE POLE No. STORY POLE TOP ELEVATION POLE No. STORY POLE TOP ELEVATION I .3'-6" ABOVE 15T FLR 9 09'.1" ABOVE 2ND FLR 2 •3'-6" ABOVE 1ST FLR 10 •9'-1" ABOVE 2ND FLR 3 .3'-6' ABOVE 2ND FLR 11 40'-6" ABOVE 2ND FLR 4 •3'-6" ABOVE 2ND FLR 12 •5'-I' ABOVE 2ND FLR 5 •9'-l' ABOVE 2ND PLR 13 .5'-1' ABOVE 2ND FLR 6 .10'-6" ABOVE 2ND FLR 14 40'-6" ABOVE 2ND FLR 1 09'-I" ABOVE 2ND FLR 15 .3'-6" ABOVE 1ST FLR 3 49'-11" ABOVE IST FLR 16 .3'-6" ABOVE 1ST FLR o PO DESIGN TEAM QU44ERS: MALCOLM 4 BONNIE tUTTENBERls MICHAEL WITTENBERC' a / 4 OLD =LARRY RJB LARKSPUR, CA, 94935 45 PHONE: 415.264.1406 EMAIL: BRIIITTENBERG1COMCASTNET APN 059-201-33 ARCHITECT: HANK BRUCE ARHCITECTS 23 5 MAIN 5T. 7)5780 N. CA 3,320 PHONE. 45 - 435 - 51I8 FAX 415 • 495 • 6051 EMAIL. hariahantegueearWteeteeoo .00 9 rooms 540E1m42.0 45 MOURE0 OAT uwOcul 4=91704 5)T FLOM) Not 47.378 1ST sLOOR 409) 02 APB 059-20 ■ 9.820 5)6 Dec. 10, 2014 add dimensions Dec. 22. 2014 deck reduction Dec. 24. 2014 -educe windows March 3. 2015 reduce 2nd Fir. March 6, 2015 Site Data \ 70: ZONE R-2 SITE DATA ITEM REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREA 1,509 5F MIN. 011 SF 11211 SF FRONTYARD SETBACC. 15 FT 7nN. 2'-1LT- 3"-6• R SIDETARD S FT MIN. 5'•0' 5'-10' L. SIDEYARD BFT MIN. 5•.Sy- 5-4e11- FEART•ARD SETBACK 26 FT. MIN. 5.4•, GARAGE SO -I. HOJBE 6•, GARAGE 94•.8. RAM LOT COvERAGE352 3924 Y r ;alb SF 162 n 10.15E • 555 fr 96 Y 902.se Ss 5 FD46AR.64* Sm e* 7: uOU5E • 552 EF OC 7414.09 • SI GARAGE . 56. Y 219S 5F 4] 512 5F TOTAL FLOOR ARE4 00.2000051515 G4R4GE 35151. • *OOP G4ReAs RAISE . 0597 Y 5,4E0 . 404 Y GARAGE • 562 v 2H0 RR . 501 Y IST RR . 533 EA 55)77 • tat ss GOUGE • 562 •3F 3075 SF 2101 5F 5U1'_DI.40 REIGHT 30 FT 295 FT 295 FT 59.29 576 crig ff5TA L M 1AR l ASE OPROPOSED SITE PLAN TIm A-� 5&7 50 of'1111 1�71I lE@EPWIE MA R 09 2015 PLANNING DIVISION rue SITE PLAN SECTION _cele A5 NOTED Dtnen By Chec2.0 ADD. . 015 Dec.. 5, 2014 5heel A-1.0 mII 41 II n m III II II II II II m ti'T-ir__ 3 m 5ATH 1' eTTEQ 1 YLT. IezEb W.I.C. 2 0 SEI• BED OOM 1 (E) ATTIC ROC' PROPOSED • e SECOND FLOOR PLAN GROSS FLOOR AREA • BOT SF PLAN LEGEND: (E) WALL TO RETIAIN WALL TO BE REMOVED NEW WALL FEW WALL I'10INTED LIGHT �CANTILEYER BAT WNDSy r WNCDOW SEATSara fie E!Im�Em pva_ � KITCHEN ------ 1 I r L LI vEDRCCM 3 SMEL3ES $ATH 2 r ESEDQ001-12 y PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN 1:33 5, (N) CRAWL CEJ CRAM. T•_ El Revisions Dec. 22. 2014 deck reduction Dec. 24, 2014 reduce windows March 3. 2015 reduce 2nd fir. PROPOSED ®1• ,. BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ILimm"I GROSS I.EATED FLOOR AREA aaS Title FLOOR PLANS Seale A5 NOTED Drown By Checked ADD. Date Dec. 5. 2014 Sheet A=2❑© DECK BEDRIOOM I 2 STORAGE 1 EXISTING 0. J2. S. SECOND FLOOR PLAN I.I=� A-2.1 r\ 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 4G' l J5'O t uP KITC:.EN PATIO MDR TN 2 HALLWAY GREAT ROOM eEDROC 3 w tl aEDROOM 2 PECK EXISTING 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN N A-2.1 CRAWL 6EDROOM 4 EXIST NG BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN I Im PATIO PECK agCO ■ RevIdiOdS Dec. 22, 2014 deck reduction Dec. 24, 2014 reduce windows March 3. 2015 reduce 2nd Flr, rroe EXISTING FLOOR PLANS Score 45 NOTED Drahn By Checked ADA. Dote Dec. 5 2014 Sheet A-2.1 Existingi I-lousepanish Trail Elevation 0' r 2' r'LIM! 1 Existing! House Vista del Mar Elevation 1.?m, Proposed Nouse: Spanish Trail Elevation I.61, N Proposed c• a• Nouse: vista del Mar Elevation ■ C-5334 Re.isions Dec. 22. 2014 deck reduction Dec. 24. 2014 reduce windows march 3. 2.015 reduce 2nd Fir. nlle ELEVATIONS Scor 45 NOTED Dra•n Ey A.DD, Checked Date Dec. 5. 2014 Sheet A03.0 Existing East Elevation 1 2' NCH Existing West Elevation REPLACE (EI PATIO (NI STAIR Cf (N) WNOOJ (TYP1 Proposed Nouse: East Elevation 1� 11 1 III El ON MI MI in la nn Proposed Nouse: West Elevation P. 10-3-_ Revisions Dec. 22. 2014 deck- reduction Dec. 24. 2014 reduce windows March 3. 2015 reduces 2nd Mr. E/ TICNS 0' t. 2' Score d5 NOTED [brace ate Dec. 5. 2012 Shee �9 GE) gbh.-I014(.. rr) j•o•.1 - t� G Avob- I ,y ce.. r av C✓) kV°- tlhlla o 1 cel ero. 12 Ntwc- 1-I017 1b1NCJ (H) 2x u/fl•. i u-ls �j Tor a-oc c o\u,4J- \V�CS`I_ ffLtVATION Ur). -MIA -Le) Torr Ci)j'Srro%Al r rA I CI NATION6: . ta �Ari--"-----'---------""."1".".""""'""rf I M?. A 2.s•lit, • TRIM 111, li .t) `o. Vp.. 1V -SI �I VATIC 4 1/41--` -- —o (Q' Mpac. I-07, natcAt =2g Aso 4- Ce.) 1-1I1-1C/LE \OVf i VATIO. S;+N %fir 0/15f.51.0J6- !I-1) 15' W. 44AM 51D11�?1 ex(-, -rjZIM C1✓�jl`ra• VA:L �uTt� Mf MATWN • - G 1 S4 �r17: g3 4 - 9l 11 NC�L5 P1/ .gQib 61, -Ar `IN fair q - TRAM CE) �1TU cco �fPII ra (1-1?) 'VATI O of Et -7 Tar [u) �. 4 4 Cv) 2k am- SAA .) roles ��GTI ON I�1t-° I` cv` d..7rrtic . al)-FA140 9vraiscl f� ',� `jol<7. r a j Ii r +a' -a" 69 fiC•kcst- +moo'®. sI_ I(90,1 ' l- :a1,b3 1t ij -la' -o°6-- �� gq.ao (�OOr 4-e -a4 -. 103.4x, +`►'-3 101.83 Ix .47, Till -l-1 �1' -co °+ v.p. Dan Watrous From: Malcolm Wittenberg [MWittenberg@batechlaw.com] ,nt: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:10 PM J: Dan Watrous Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Road p©1[IW MAR 112015 PLANNING DIVISION Dan, I want to begin by thanking you for calling me upon listening to my voicemail message left with Peggy. It was my understanding in sitting through last month's City Council meeting that members of City Council, as part of the decision-making process in an appeal taken from the DRB, travel to and inspect the homeowner's and protester's properties to enable them to fully appreciate the issues involved. It would greatly assist us if members of the City Council could provide us with date/time windows when such visits are contemplated. Our home is currently unoccupied and either Bonnie or I would need to be at our home to unlock the door and to greet members. Thanks again Dan. Hope to see you soon. Malcolm 1 Dan Watrous LATE MAIL # rf-1 From: Richard Wodehouse [rewodehouse@gmail.comj ,nt: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:40 PM J: Dan Watrous Subject: Fwd: 2312 Spanish Trail Proposed Additions Dear Tiburon Town Council Members: RIE©111W2-,) MAR 1 1 2015 - PLANNING DIVISION In the chance that I am not able to drive back from Colorado in time for the meeting on the 18th, I am writing to request that you consider the following four items regarding the proposed additions to the existing home at 2312 Spanish Trail. The proposed additions will be in such close proximity to our home that Jennifer Dunbar and I are concerned with the resulting loss of privacy and intrusion upon our use of our home. We are trying to be cooperative neighbors and are willing to endure with many of the encroachments into the side yard setback, loss of sun etc. Following the inconclusive ending to the last DRB meeting, there are four aspects of the proposed project on which we would like your evaluation and declaration. 1. The L shaped deck off their mid level bedroom #3: This deck has two impacts upon us: 1. The East West section paralleling the window and door of the bedroom brings a usable deck to within close proximity of our kitchen, kitchen deck and West bedroom, invading into the privacy of these areas of our house. We request this section of deck be eliminated. 2. The North South leg of this deck has the effect of extending their main deck another four feet closer to our side. In the minutes of the next to last meeting you can read Chair Cousin's statement that this section of deck be eliminated and the main deck be brought "back to the building line". We also request this section eliminated as was stated by Chair Cousins. 1. It is worth noting that once these two reductions are made their remaining main deck size will be almost exactly the same square footage as our main deck off our living room which we find spacious enough to accommodate many uses. 2. Now that story poles have been erected for the first time showing the location of the third level deck in it's new cantilevered configuration, it is apparent that this deck indubitably looks down on us at our kitchen and kitchen deck. 3. Lighting: We request that appropriate non -intrusive lighting be specified on the plans. 4. Requirement of a fence and screening between our homes in this section of close proximity between the two homes. 1. A look at the plot plan resulting from a survey we had done recently will show you that the current wobbly fence overgrown with ivy is at the closest point of the decks about 20 inches over on our side of the property line. The close proximity between the two homes and the resulting loss of privacy from the new additions cause us to request from you a definitive and enforceable description of the following installed by the applicant of 2312. 1. A solid fence erected on their side of the property line 2. Trees and other appropriate screening planted on their side of the new fence. These trees not to be allowed to grow so tall as to block out our afternoon sun. 1 Thank you so much for your time on this matter, Jennifer and I look forward to your direction in resolving these matters. Richard E. Wodehouse rewodehouse@gmail.coin cell: 415 944 0278 PO Box 211, Tiburon, Ca 94920 www.ri chardwodehouse. conn 2