Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2015-05-20 (4)TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting May 20, 2015 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department 1895 Centro West Street; 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 Excess Building Height; Gerald Heinze and John Paletta, Owners/Applicants; Mary and Donald Force, Appellants; File No. VAR2015005; Assessor's Parcel Number: 059-071-13 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: File Number: Property Owners: Applicant: Lot Size: Zoning: General Plan: Flood Zone: SUMMARY 1895 Centro West Street 059-071-13 VAR2015005 Gerald Heinze And John Paletta Kate Jessell 12,125 Square Feet R-2 (Two -Family Residential) H (High Density Residential) X (Outside 500 -year storm event) On March 19, 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 a variance for excess building height, on property located at 1895 Centro West Street. The owners of the property at 265 Diviso Street (Mary and Donald Foree), hereinafter referred to as "appellants," 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 1895 Centro West Street. The project would involve the construction of an elevator connecting both levels of the existing duplex to the carport at a level below. The 37 square foot addition would include new windows facing the bay and a mechanical room within an existing unfinished area on the parking level. The proposed colors and materials of the elevator addition would match those of the existing two-family dwelling. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 Town Council Mccting May 20, 201 As approved by the Design Review Board, the proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 2,965 square feet, which would be less than the 3,212 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The lot coverage on the site would be 2,656 square feet (21.9%) of the site, which would be less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The existing duplex currently has a maximum height of 43 feet. The new roof of the elevator would reach a maximum height of 42 feet. As the maximum building height in the R-2 zone is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This application was reviewed at the March 19, 2015 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, no residents were in attendance or spoke about the application and no letters had been received from any neighbors prior to the meeting. The Design Review Board characterized the project design as straightforward and felt that it would not impact any neighboring properties. The Board agreed with the findings in the staff report regarding the requested variance and voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the project as submitted. Due to the brevity of the presentations for the items on the agenda, the meeting lasted less than 4 minutes and was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Shortly after the meeting ended, several nearby residents (not the appellants) entered the Council chambers, but did not express any opposition to the subject application. On March 25, 2015, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The appellants did not receive a mailed notice of this application. Staff Response: A notice of the Design Review Board meeting regarding the subject application was mailed by Town staff on March 4, 2015 to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The appellants were included in this mailing. As proof that the notice was mailed out, staff spoke to at least two neighboring residents who asked questions about the application after receiving notices. One mailed notice was also returned due to an expired forwarding notice. Once the required notices have been delivered to the local post office, the Town has no control over the actual delivery of the notices. The Town has added language to the outside of each notice stating that "this is an important notice that may affect your property" to encourage recipients to read, and not discard, such notices. Ground #2: Noise from the proposed elevator would be audible from neighboring properties. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 -I -own Council Meering May 20, 2015 Staff Response: The Tiburon Planning Division has adopted standards for noise levels for noise -generating equipment outside of buildings and requires design review approval for such equipment. The Town does not have similar noise standards for equipment enclosed within buildings. The mechanical equipment for the proposed residential elevator would be enclosed within a new machine room within unfinished underfloor area of the building adjacent to the parking level of the two-family dwelling. On May 11, 2015, the applicant submitted a response letter (attached as part of Exhibit 7) offering to soundproof the equipment room. Contemporary residential elevators are designed to minimize noise to the residents of the building and, with containing the equipment within an enclosed structure would reduce these noise levels even further outside the building. Many multi -story homes in Tiburon are now equipped with elevators and staff has never received any complaints from neighboring residents about the noise from such elevators. Ground #3: Light from the windows of the elevator would intrude into neighboring homes. Staff Response: The proposed elevator would include three windows on the southern (left) side of the elevator shaft. These windows would face toward Centro West Street. There would be one window on each of the three levels of the proposed elevator. Each window would be 3.5 feet wide and 5.5 feet tall. The appellants' home is situated east of the subject property, approximately 100 feet from the site of the proposed elevator. Although the proposed windows would face south, the windows would be visible from the appellant's residence, but would not intrude into any nighttime views to the south from this home. As part of the aforementioned materials submitted by the applicants as part of Exhibit 6, the applicants propose to install tinted glass on the elevator windows. 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 proposed elevator would not result in substantial noise or view impacts on other homes in the vicinity and the Board was able to make the findings required to support the requested variance. If the Town Council wishes to incorporate the soundproofing and window tinting measures offered by the applicants into the conditions of approval for this project, the Council may partially grant the appeal to add these or any other desired conditions. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Town Council. \Iccring N.lay 20, 2015 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 3), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to partially grant the appeal to incorporate the applicant's proposed modifications as additional conditions of approval. 3) Direct Staff to return with a resolution partially granting the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of appeal 2. Appeal procedures 3. Application and supplemental materials 4. Design Review Board staff report dated March 19, 2015 5. Minutes of the March 19, 2015 Design Review Board meeting 6. Letter from Susan and William Lukens, dated April 1, 2015 7. Letters and photos submitted by applicants, dated May 11, 2015 Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager S: IAdministration]Tou'n CouncillStafffReports120151May 20 Drafts11895 Centro West appeal report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 R.2@lHE al MAR 25 2015 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OFF .1:113URON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, G1 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 www.ci.tiburon.cu.us APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary) Name: /241 leY 4 -Doi i Mailing Address: ...54 Telephoner% 3 R- % ? gc (Work) 4/.5-- 43.5 6 /..;q (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): 0/Cf' �,�i -(� c7j 9.. / Gov ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: / eeli - /Zc &al ST Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: ,/'k'a A GR- 0 r v� Name of Applicant: 44ai2y AFL Type of Application or Decision: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) P1(<a 5 - a(6 /6 ****************************************************************************** STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: 5 (DOI (5 - Fee Paid: t3 Receipt No. 2 Date of Appeal HearintnJBIT NO. NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non -applicant t? t DF 2 S:IAdntinistrationlForntsWotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised Marchi 2010 Date Appeal Filed: 312-,(15- March 25, 2015 ro) © 2 1111 f�AR252015 1 PLANNING DIVISION Grounds for appeal of an external elevator to be added to 1895 Centro West Street. 1. We did not receive a notice that an external elevator addition to 1895 Centro West was being considered. We were apprized of this addition by a neighbor after the request had been approved by the Tiburon Design Review Board. Had we received such a notice, we would have appealed the request in a timely manner. Thus this late notification to the DRB. 2. The garage area of this building is so constructed that every spoken word in conversation can be distinctly heard by every household surrounding this space. Therefore. It can reasonably be expected that each time the elevator is in use, the noise from its mechanical component will similarly be heard by at least four of the neighbors whose homes border the external space of this elevator. We know of what we speak regarding noise from mechanical operations. There is a pump situated at the uppermost part of our property on Diviso Street that can be heard distinctly each time it automatically begins operation. With this external elevator in place, we will now have noise at both extremes of our home. We hope you can appreciate our concern. 3. There is an additional concern from others that the light from this externally visible elevator will be a most unwelcome intrusion into their homes. 4. We recognize the convenience an external elevator will be to occupants of this building, but its commensurate irritation and disturbance of the peace, particularly during the evening use of this mechanism, does not warrant such an addition. We respectfully bring this to your attention, and ask your kind consideration of our conacerns. Sincerely, 727,' • f0' Mary E. McNiff Foree Aiv-dad Donald C. Foree 265 Diviso St. Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435-6139 dcforee@gmail.com EXHIBIT NO. J RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PRO CED URE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 1 EXHIBIT NO._1! The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) (b) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) (b) (c) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 EXHIBIT Na. Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council. Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 EXHIBIT NO. SCHEDULING OF APPEALS 1. The Towns policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (1 S) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councihnembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original -decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three -hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 EXHIBIT NO. 2 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff - level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 • EXHIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIC 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) 'Design Review (Staff Level) o Variance(s) o Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Permit FEB 10 2015 PLANNING DIVISION 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: 1895 CENTRO WEST STREET PARCEL NUMBER: 059-071-13 PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN PALETTA ;/ PROPERTY SIZE: 12,125 ZONING: R2 MAILING ADDRESS: .12 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: 4-15 272 3315 E-MAIL: propertydesign(a,yahoo.com APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER KATE JESSELL MAILING ADDRESS: 1109 COPELAND CREEK DRIVE, ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: 707 230 2463 E-MAIL: cjgjessell@yahoo.com Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): ADD A 37 SQ. FT. ELEVATOR TO THE SIDE OF THE DUPLEX, FROM THE PARKING LEVEL TO THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM FOR! IDNOR ALTERATION TOWN OF TIBURON REV. 04/2014 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT NO. t� 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 to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any aw•. s of attofees th,ht result from the third party challenge. Signature:* Date: ?//0//5� The property volving this permit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), ; -ch may restrict the property's use and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon. Consequently, development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact the appropriate homeowners association and adjacent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding with construction. Following this procedure will minimize the potefavi isa • :+ ent among neighbors and possible litigation. Signature: * Date: Z. `)/ *1f other th +P'owner, must have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this application NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65945, applicants may request to receive notice from the Town of Tiburon of any general (non -parcel - specific), proposals to adopt or amend the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plans, or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits. If you wish to receive such notice, then you may make a written request to the Director of Community Development to be included on a mailing list for such purposes, and must specify which types of proposals you wish to receive notice upon. The written request must also specify the length of time you wish to receive such notices (s), and you must provide to the Town a supply of stamped, self-addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the Town for the duration of the time period requested for receiving such notices. The notice will also provide the status of the proposal and the date of any public hearings thereon which have been set. The Town will determine whether a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application, and send the notice on that basis, Such notice shall be upda there is no change to the contents of the notice that would reasonably affect your application. Requests should be mail Town of Tiburon Community Development Department Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-7390 (Tel) (415) 435-2438(Fax) www.townoftiburon.org DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE . .�t si1{ 1111 FEB 1 0 2015 PLANNING DIVISION V,R,2 S'00s` DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION Application No.: . GP Designation: Fee Deposit: Zea ? C PP i Date Received: ,\ i p t� Received By: l� Receipt #: al 30 241 31g Date Deemed Complete: 7i2 -At ` By: 'Kb Acting Body: -I. a Action:12. E Date: 3L(ed i Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance # SUPPLE EKrAL APPLICA77ONFORM FOR MINOR ALTERATION TOWN OFTIBURON REV. 04/2014 MINOR ALTERATION SUPPLA1ENT Please fill in the information requested below: 1. Briefly describe the proposed project (attach separate sheet as needed): ADD A 37 SQ. FT. ELEVATOR TO SIDE OF DUPLEX, OPENING FROM THE PARKING LEVEL TO THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L))*: 12,125 3. Square footage of Landscape Area: 6,907 SQ. FT. Zoning: R2 4. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing DUPLEX Proposed DUPLEX r 5. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, tumarot.ingq fw LOWEST PARKING LEVEL IS REDUCED FROM 15'-6" TO 10'-0" WID OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. • I . , eas. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION AND/OR ALTERATION PROPOSED CAL- CULATED P �ZOONNE Yards (Setbacks from property line) (Section 16- 100.020(Y))* Front 37 ft. 0 ft. 37 ft. ft. , ft. f Rear 30 ft. 0 ft. 30 ft. ft. j�,'1- ft. Right Side 44.5 ft. 5.75 ft. 38.75 ft. ft. Cg ft. Left Side 8 ft. 0 ft. 8 ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height (Section 16-30.050)* 43 ft. 0 ft. 43 ft. T'2_ ft• r L ' ft. Lot Coverage (Section 16-30.120(8))* 2-t. d sq.ft Sa) 2�� sq.ft. . Gsq.ft. 4 2-e 3 ' sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area 2 f % c.7 % 2.—i % A-1 % .� Gross Floor Area (Section 16- 100.020(F))* L 9q.ft. 3 7 sq.ft. 9 C sq.ft. sq.ft. 2.1 2 sq.ft. *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) S:1Planning\Forms\Current Forms\Design Review Board Application for Minor Alteration 9-2012.doc SUPPLEMENTAL APPIJCATION FORM FOR MINOR ALTERATION TOWN OF TIBURON REV. 04%2014 PACE 3 EXHIBIT NO.3 ?. 3 e F varine. Hord. I Pa.m1.1 ,dr p LE@E[1 Yi FFR 24 2015 PLANNING DIVISION • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (415)-435-7390 www_cLtlburon.ca.us . ..APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 16.52.030 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. . • WHAT VARIANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING? This Magnitude Zoning Of Variance Existing Application . ance Condition Requirement Condition Proposes Of Varited Front Yard Setback I S 1 3 1 1 •, 7 r i6 r Rear Yard Setback 2- S r 3 p ' 0 Left Side Yard Setback gt g` 21 56,.,{ SI • of �I_Lu 331-q rr 7' Right Side Yard Setback f Lot Coverage 3 5 /o 21 • 1 �! o 22. Z /o Height 3a I 431 4zr 1 2.1 Parcel Area Per Dwelling Unit Usable Open Space Parking Expansion of Nonconformity Other (Please describe): APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE REV 06/10 TOWN OFTIBURON Page EXHIBIT NO. 3 p, 4 cP APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 1895 CENTRO WEST STREET, TIBURON CA FILE #715020 RESPONSE TO VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. The topography of the site of the existing duplex extremely steep, so that a portion of the building is higher than the required height limit. 2. This is consistent with other houses in the same neighborhood built on equally steep slopes. 3. The owner of the property would like to live in the second floor apartment, but there is a steep walk from the parking spaces and two long sets of stairs which makes it extremely difficult for his wife to manage. Unfortunately, the only place to locate the elevator shaft is on the part of the building that is already above the height limit, which is the only place that does not disrupt the parking and is accessible to the two floors. 4. The proposed elevator will have no detrimental effect because it is only 37 square feet, is lower than the existing building, and is not seen by the neighbors. EXHIBIT NO. 5 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting March 19, 2015 Agenda Item: 2 STAFF REPORT To: From: Members of the Design Review Board Community Development Department Subject: 1895 Centro West Street; File #VAR2015005; Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of Additions to an Existing Two -Family Dwelling, with Variances for Excess Building Height Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 1895 CENTRO WEST STREET GERALD HEINZE AND JOHN PALETTA KATE JESSELL 059-071-13 VAR2015005 12,125 SQUARE FEET R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) X FEBRUARY 26, 2015 TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. - PAGE 1 OF 5 Design Review Board MeeLing Marsh .19. 2015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with a variance for excess building height, on property located at 1895 Centro West Street. The property is currently developed with a 2,928 square foot, two-story, two- family dwelling with an attached carport. The project would involve the construction of an elevator connecting both levels of the existing duplex to the carport at a level below. The 37 square foot addition would include new windows facing the bay and a mechanical room within an existing unfinished area on the parking level. The proposal would result in a floor area of 2,965 square feet, which is below the maximum floor area ratio for the property (3,212 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,656 square feet (21.9%), which is below the maximum 35% permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone. The existing duplex currently has a maximum height of 43 feet. The new roof of the elevator would reach a maximum height of 42 feet. As the maximum building height in the R-2 zone is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. The proposed colors and materials of the elevator addition would match those of the existing two- family dwelling. ANALYSIS Design Issues The subject property slopes steeply up from Centro West Street. The two-family dwelling is built at a level above the carports and parking area below, making it difficult to easily access the dwellings above from the carport below. The proposed elevator would greatly improve the accessibility of both dwelling units on this property. The proposed elevator would extend out 5 feet, 9 inches from the east side of the building. The elevator addition would not be easily visible from other homes in the vicinity. The residence above the site at 4 St. Bernard Lane has views below in line with the proposed addition, but the addition would not block water views or any other important views from this nearby home. Staff does not foresee any other design issue with the proposed addition. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the requested variance for excess building height. 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 N0. 4 PAGE 2 OF 5 Design Revicw hard; -lectin, March 19. 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 sante or similar zones. The subject property slopes steeply up from Centro West Street and the existing two-family dwelling is constructed above a carport area, with a 43 foot height that exceeds the maximum building height for this zone. These physical characteristics are special circumstances applicable to the property which would deprive the applicants of the privilege of installing an elevator which is enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or in the same or similar zones. 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 R-2 and similar zones that currently exceed the allowable building height have received variances for excess building height to accommodate additions to provide unproved accessibility of functionality for the existing building. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical diffrcuhy 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. The strict application of the maximum building height requirement for this property would not allow an elevator to reach the upper dwelling unit and continue the difficult access for residents and guests attempting to navigate the steep slopes and excess height of the existing building to reach the upper residence. This would result in an unnecessary physical hardship for residents of this duplex. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As noted above, the proposed elevator addition would not intrude into views for any nearby homes and would not result in privacy impacts on nearby residences. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding this application. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 3 OF 5 Design Review Board Mccring March 19, 2015 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. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles), Section 16-52.030 (E) Variance, and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. If the Design Review Board agrees with Staff's conclusions, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Submitted plans Prepared by: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. l PAGE 4 OF 5 Design Review Roarcl Meeting \larch L, 2015 DRAFT CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL 1895 CENTRO WEST STREET FILE #VAR2015005 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. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on February 10, 2015, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of March 5, 2015 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Division for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 4. 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. 5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO.� PAGE 5 OF 5 MINUTES #5 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2015 The meeting was opened at 7:01 p.m. by Chair Cousins. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Cousins, Vice Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Chong and Kricensky Absent: Boardmember Emberson Ex -Officio: Planning Manager Watrous B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 65 REED RANCH ROAD; File No. DR2015001; Andrea Hong and James Parsons, Owners; Daniel Mihalovich and Judy Stern, Appellants; Adoption of resolution partially granting appeal of approved Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of modifications to an existing single-family dwelling. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-301-35. Following a public hearing and discussion at its March 5, 2015 regular meeting, the Design Review Board directed to staff to prepare a draft resolution partially granting the Site Plan and Architectural Review application described above and adding a condition of approval, with said resolution to be considered for adoption at the next regular meeting. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) to adopt the resolution partially granting the appeal for 317 Karen Way, with the condition of approval that the rear stairway shall not extend further out at the top than the existing deck and the stairway shall exit at the top at the same angle or further away from the neighboring house as the existing stairs. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 1895 CENTRO WEST STREET: File No. VAR2015005; Gerald Heinze and John Paletta, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess building height. The project would allow the construction of an elevator addition to connect the carport on the site to both dwelling units above. The elevator would have a height of 42 feet, which is greater than the 30 foot maximum building height allowed in the R-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-071-13. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #5 3/19/15 EXHIBIT NO. 5 1 The applicant is requesting design review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with a variance for excess building height, on property located at 1895 Centro West Street. The project would involve the construction of an elevator connecting both levels of the existing duplex to the carport at a Ievel below. The 37 square foot addition would include new windows facing the bay and a mechanical room within an existing unfinished area on the parking level. The proposal would result in a floor area of 2,965 square feet, which is below the maximum floor area ratio for the property (3,212 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,656 square feet (21.9%), which is below the maximum 35% permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone. The existing duplex currently has a maximum height of 43 feet. The new roof of the elevator would reach a maximum height of 42 feet. As the maximum building height in the R-2 zone is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. Kate Jessell, designer, stated that they plan to build a 37 square feet elevator on a duplex and the variance was needed because it would be 12 feet higher than the code allows. There were no public comments. Boardmember Kricensky said that the project was straightforward and that although a height variance was requested it would be lower than the existing house. He agreed with staffs findings regarding the variance. Vice -Chair Tollini said that he visited that site and felt that the project would not be impactful or controversial and he supported the project. Boardmember Chong and Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the request for 1895 Centro West Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #4 OF THE MARCH 5, 2015 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2015 meeting, as written. Vote: 4-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #5 3/19/15 EXHIBIT NO. 2 SUSAN F. and WILIEAM' tvl. LUKENS 160 Las Lomas Lane, Tiburon, CA 94920 April 1.2015 Honorable Frank Doyle, Mayor Honorable Council Members Tiburon Town Hall, 15 55 Tiburon Blvd.. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of Mary and .Doan Fora e Regarding Installation of Exterior Elevator 1895 Centro West. Tiburon. CA L ©IElW I --)ii v PLANNING DIVISION .Honor: bie Mayor and Council Members, We support the appeal of appellanls..Mary and Don Foree. who reside immediately adjacent to the subject project which involves the installation of an exterior elevator ("Project"). We respectfully request that the maner' be remanded to the Board of Design Review for a proper hearing, The abbreviated session held by the Design 'Review .Board, lasting approximately fourl_1 nlinartc�s, did not fulfill the Tc}«'n's requirement for a full hearing on the merits of the Project and'or the four findings required by the Town Code in order to allow :t variance. See Action 'g5, Minutes o.fTiburon Design Review Hoard, attached as Exhibit A.2 As the owncrs of three residential properties located directly below Project, eve request a proper review. No other homes in our vicinity have outside elevators. The new elevator will be seen and heard from approximately a dozen neighbors. The staff report mistakenly represented that:"The�levator addition would not he easily visible from other homes in the vicinity." See The Minutes shot{ that the meting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Titus too presentation eould have ben nut;9.: h; either the staff or the applicant. There was no meaningful discussion between the members :oi'the Board. There ►tats rio review,- of the four factors necessary for a variance. There was nothing in the minutes that reflect that the 13airrd made any, specific findings at all, EXHIBIT ~ T IT NO. {? I DP -5— The Honorable Prat* Doyle. .Mayor And Council Members. Town of Tiburon April L 2015 Staff Report, page 2. Design issues, Exhibit B. This was incorrect. The elevator will be highly visible fr-orn approximately 13 hornes located on Las Lomas. Centro West and Divisc, Str=eets. We attended the hearing on March 19 and arrived shorty after 7:00 p.m BV the time we arrived, the Design Review Board had adjourned and die members were leaving. We had no opportunity to speak. nor apparently did the Project get presented or reviewed. The 7:00 p.m. meeting was concluded in just four minutes although the agenda showed the hearing as second on the calendar. We arrived at the chambers shortie after 7:03_ but the "hr-.arine had been concluded with l j no presentation of the project by the Staff, 2) no presentation by the applicant, 3) no deliberation by the Board on the merits of the design_ and 4-) no issuance of the mandatory findings for a variance as required by Tiburon law. Such review and findings are mandated by Town Ordinance 16-52.030. subdivision E. See Exhibit (' attached hereto. A re- hearing :should be granted an the sole fact that the matter was decided purely on the Stiff Report which contained a serious error, i -e. that the Project is no. '-easily visible by other homes in the vicinity." In fact, the elevator will he highly visible from over a dozen homes. The Board assumed the Project had no impact and "approved" it in four minutes -without either a presentation by the staff or the applicant and \vil:hout the requisite review and findings of the four factors necessary for a variance. Further, had there been a review of the proposed findings offered by the Staff and the Applicant. they would have been found to have been unmeritorious. The fist finding. that 2 1 . EXHIBIT No.= ?, 2 orS- The Honorable Frank Do; -le. Mayor And Council Members, Towri of Tiburon April 1. 2015 -special circurnstail€es applicable to the property' deprived the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other neighbors is false. First, there are no other elevators in the neighborhood. The only other elevator in Old Tiburon is located at 18893 Mar West Street_ overlooking the large parking lot. Further. it is the over -height building that dictates the so-called need, not the topography of the land. Second, the granting would indeed {rive the applicant a special privilege to that it is the first owner to install an outside elevator. and the new appendage is one ni dubious aesthetic value.!' The .noise factor alone would seen to distinauish ibis installation from the other residences in the neighborhood. Third, the strict application n of the ordinance would not create a hardship given that the apartment hoarse has survived without ldri elevator for over 50 years, and whether it need.: to he installed outside for all to see is something that should have been considered. Fourth, the elevator definitely could pose a noise problem for the neighborhood depending on the frequency of its: use and given that it is being installed in a "bowl" area where mechanical sounds are magnified by the topography. So m the very least, the four factors should 'have been reviewed in a manner that would allow local residents to spark. For the reasons set 117,1111 above. we respectfully ask the Council to remand the matter to the Desi_n Review Board for a full and proper hewing. Respectfully submitted. Susan and William Lukens Ince t1. 11-t Design RRevi'cw Board is created to perform the function of rekit t of Stich 'natters. Nc was given as t:, whether the etev ter court be installed inside the, existing strecture. 31 t' EXHIBIT NO. () (, 3D-5 Town of Tiburon !Municipal Code 16-64.040 - !-fearing procedure. Review al hearings. The review authority shall review the application or action and other evidence relevant to the action requested. The review authority shall hear all persons wishing to be heard on the matter The applicant or appellant may appear on his own bohalf or may be represented by his duly authorized agent or counsel. 16-54.050 - Findings. conditions, and decisions. A. E. Design review board findings. conditions, and decisions. The board's action may be by rsolution or other means that shall clearly set forth the findings required by any applicable sections of this zoning ordinance. and which shall set forth any conditions imposed by the board. Any action taken by the board shall to by a majority of those voting. Tie votes shall constitute a failure of the motion to pass. The lack of an affirmative majority for approval by those voting shall constitute a denial of an application or request_ The board's decision shall be final unless an appeal is filed with the council, as provided in_divis .,n, te:--5(appeals). [emphasis added) Findings by review authority. in order to approve or conditionally approve an application for a variance, the review authority shall, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, make all of the following findings 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: EXHIBIT NO.= �,'�°ns- 3. 4_ The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges. inconsistent with the limitations upon other propertibs in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone: The strict application of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Seff-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that minht 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 The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating the existence of any special circumstances. The review authority must find that facts and evidence exist in support of the -findings. EXHIBIT NO.62 . D" S Attached : 1- Notice of Appeal & appellant's letter 2- Project architect written solutions 3- Pacific Access Elevator response to notice factor 4- Project architect response to variance findings Attached Photos : p�g��J _g MAY 1 1 2015 J PLANNING DIVISION - Showing distance between location of elevator mechanical room and appellant's property, also vacant lot and lot vegetation between properties - Actual walking distance from existing parking location to units , including existing stairs. (Approx.22© i c.) Please Note: photos were taken on clear day, rainy weather adds greater difficulty especially with packages or groceries EXHIEIT NO. MAR 252015 tuj _ PLANNING DIVISION TOWII O Z IBURON NOTICF, OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, 01 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 ivtiirw. ci. tiburon. ca.v s APPELLANTS) (Attach additional pages if necessary) Name: Ma e u 4 :- %/11 Mailing Address: Co S - t I1tS - Telephone:4/5-- 3,2R- 7 gj (Work) 41_5-- 495-- FAX 9 —FAX and/or e-mail (optional): d (f ?mai 1 a r ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: / Ce/174/Z0 /) 63:1 �7 Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: .4't-.7 i'ait a © / N2me of Applicant: 443.121 4-- Type 'Type of Application or Decision: (Home) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) P!es .5-ee o_-ct ae6- *********re*:1=**** :*********ek*************** *oY.******** Fac*********************:{:* STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: 3 dot LS- Date Appeal Filed: 312-71 ao Fee Paid: /3 Receipt No. -- X55`( Date of Appeal Hearing: NO'1h: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 fiat fee for non -applicant SHIldminisirntioiilForinsWotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc rrr. ch 201Q . cz Ci --2-0 March 25, 2015 RE@EOWIE-1,1 till MAR 2 5 2015 PLANNING DIVISION Grounds for appeal of an external elevator to be added to 1895 Centro West Street. 1. We did not receive a notice that an external elevator addition to 1895 Centro West was being considered. We were apprized of this addition by a neighbor after the request had been approved by the Tiburon Design Review Board. Had we received such a notice, we would have appealed the request in a timely manner. Thus this late notification to the DRB. 2. The garage- area of this building is so constructed that every spoken word in conversation can be distinctly heard by every household surrounding this space. Therefore. It can reasonably be expected that each time the elevator is in use, the noise from its mechanical component will similarly be heard by at least four of the neighbors whose homes border the external space of this elevator. We know of what we speak regarding noise from mechanical operations. There is a pump situated at the uppermost part of our property on Diviso Street that can be heard distinctly each time it automatically begins operation. With this external elevator in place, we will now have noise at both extremes of our home. We hope you can appreciate our concern. 3. There is an additional concern from others that the light from this externally visible elevator will be a most unwelcome intrusion into their homes. 4. We recognize the convenience an external elevator will be to occupants of this building, but its commensurate irritation and disturbance of the peace, particularly during the evening use of this mechanism, does not warrant such an addition. We respectfully bring this to your attention, and ask your kind consideration of our conacerns. Sincerely, - r )27c_f2.B- Mary E. McNiff Foree Donald C. Foree 265 Diviso St Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435-6139 dcforee@gmail.com A EXHIBIT N4. = 3.. oP 2.v PROSPECT STUDIO 1109 COPELAND CREEK DRIVE, ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 PHONE: (707) 230 2463 CELL: (4081386 497; EMAIL: CJOJESSELL@YAHOO.COM April 7, 2015 Mr. and Mrs. Foree 265 Diviso Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 1895 Centro West St . Tiburon Dear Mr. & Mrs. Foree, 1- The elevator design was carefully done so that it would blend in with the neighborhood, and we have chosen Pacific Access Elevator Co. because of the quality of work and the quietness of their hydraulic systems. The machine room where the system is located is in an enclosed area under the existing building so it will not be heard, especially by the tenants. Just to make sure there will be no disturbance to you, we are willing to enclose the interior walls of the machine room with soundproofing. 2- In regard to your concern about the light from the window in the elevator shaft. We are removing four large living room windows that face west, toward your house, which are now able to be lit up all evening, and replacing them in the elevator shaft with three smaller south facing windows which will only be lit up briefly though a smaller approximately (12 in. x 18 in.) elevator cab window. We thought that looking out these small windows in the elevator would be more pleasant as one rode in it and not so claustrophobic . The light level, a 25w bulb in the elevator cab, is not bright. Since all the views in the area are to the south, we know it will not impair anyone's view. Once again, just to be sure, we are willing to install tinted glass in the windows, virtually eliminating any light from the small windows in the elevator cab. The only exterior light that will be added is a down light fixture, which will be by the elevator door at the carport level, towards the back, under the carport roof. Currently there are three existing carport night lights, to light up the carport area, closer to your property, that have been in use for security protection for many years. Our request for making the livable areas of the building accessible to the elderly and physically challenged (handicapped) is surely accomplishing the current goal of all towns and cities, actually the nation as a whole. We have done everything possible to avoid any visual or audible annoyance that may occur during the lifetime of the building occupancy . I believe that we have solid solutions that solve all your concerns, and we hope that you will withdraw your appeal. If you still have any concerns, I will be happy to meet with you at your earliest convenience. Please respond by Monday 4/20, so if needed we will have time to address any issues. Thank you, Kate Jessell EXHIBIT NO. -7 PACIFIC ACCESS ELEVATOR 937 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94303 800.862.9787 FAX 650.494.2005 April 6, 2015 To: Catherine Jessell From: Kurt Frietzsche RE: Residential Elevators Hi Kate, This is in response to question of noise generation from use of the Waupaca Elevator model Excelevator Hydraulic Elevator System. As we discussed in the past this hydraulic system is extremely quiet which why it is our most popular model. The Excelevator Roped- Hydraulic residential elevator utilizes a submerged pump and motor in floor mount reservoir. This considerably reduces any noise in the immediate area of the drive unit. Noise generated by the hydraulic pump when running would be similar to a typical residential appliance, like a washer/dryer or washing machine. The pump motor only runs in the up direction, gravity does the work in the downward direction. It is virtually quiet for 50% of use. As elevator equipment is required to be located in an enclosed machine room, Any immediate noise would further be reduced by the room enclosure. With extra measures of sound proofing of the interior walls in the machine room , I am convinced there will be no disturbance to the tenants in the building, definitely no sound that can be heard by adjacent neighbors in the area. Let me know if I can be or further assistance. Thanks, Kurt Frietzsche President Pacific Access Elevators EXHIBIT NO. 7 �. d? ao APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 1895 CENTRO WEST STREET, TIBURON CA FILE #715020 RESPONSE TO VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. The topography of the site of the existing duplex extremely steep, so that a portion of the building is higher than the required height limit. 2. This is consistent with other houses in the same neighborhood built on equally steep slopes. 3. The owner of the property would like to live in the second floor apartment, but there is a steep walk from the parking spaces and two long sets of stairs which makes it extremely difficult for his wife to manage. Unfortunately, the only place to locate the elevator shaft is on the part of the building that is already above the height limit, which is the only place that does not disrupt the parking and is accessible to the two floors. 4. The proposed elevator will have no detrimental effect because it is only 37 square feet, is lower than the existing building, and is not seen by the neighbors. EXHIBIT NO. `7 f c6 2d "--?••,..4-741 ,� ►� - r: EXHIBIT NO. '7 '_..,"rt,fi ? h✓ * ;pF ly?i rjj ,.' :'--'r/ A ?- [ y1 c .i: y rr` 1 - • ri'�4 is KI i yy' ,`.�1T ,}jY� l l• , }y - � i ` f� J, .." `` �1=`'''1c�lhiY ‘i, Y+A 1, or ij„� 4•v. �ei+KA�G q� , ,1 i w -r -�• ,4+ ,, } ' r � h • t' . i t it I r�. • ` t. y. � �,,y, r . 3{e ' I f 11 y 'Y. Jn, it . �1.. ! 7 y, �k� l • { R �'� •,' r1' :. t' '' 1' .ti .' �`y �. 4 .'l,'.y. '1,,I.,.."'f- /) EXHIBIT NO. '�7 C z6 • i - .4,5 2. .. , ' `� .•� raft; a SII , /4 i • I' NO • • f, Tf Lobb EXHIBIT NO. 7 p, (Z oP 20 • ly 02-2_0 IT NO 0,- 2--o J;eaSw x .y.. ms`s • ;..0 a...,,_..",,..2,..... -"! fv:,a as3s �'aa..a -03.;'%c •i EXHIBIT NO. 7 _ 1 N• �"��� a,r �-"�'--�a.p`'_.: '''�"JA''�0�•�A""-�,E �, �'. �� �.'�'_ �'�a' `�+-�+ 'cam ?tea,'- r �" •rs �_,.. :" .' `•"tom ice �'�a its' -.1e71.• ,e _