The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2006-02-01 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 February 1, 2006 7:30 P.M. - Regular Meeting 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.cLtiburon.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 ~eneral 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. ;t!U4-- --- Agenda - Town Council Meeting February 1, 2006 Page 2 of 4 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLLCALL Councilmember Berger, Council member Fredericks, Councilmember Slavitz, Vice Mayor Gram, Mayor Smith ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council- on any subject not on the agenda may do so now. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit vour comments to no more than three (3) minutes. INTRODUCTION AND SWEARING IN OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS . Tyson Miller . Allen Klemme APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES . Interim Appointment to Planning Commission 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 public, staff or Town Council that an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Likewise, any item on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar. If you would like to speak on any of these items on the Consent Calendar below, please do so now. 1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - January 18, 2006 2. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - AcceptTown Monthly Investment Summary for December 2005 3. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services & Financial Analyst - Amend Hourly Rate Schedule for Town Staff Cost Recovery a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Adopting a Revised Hourly Rate Schedule for Town of Tiburon Personnel 4. Request by Chamber of Commerce - Special Event Permit for Closure of Portion of Tiburon Boulevard for 23rd Annual Wine Festival, May 13, 2006 Agenda - Town Council Meeting February 1, 2006 Page 3 of 4 REGULAR AGENDA 5. Presentation by Dr. Tom Cromwell- Disaster Preparedness for Tiburon Peninsula PUBLIC HEARING 6. Recommendation by Interim Director of Public Works and Project Coordinator - Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Hearing on Notice of Intention for Proposed Supplemental Engineer's Report and Authorization to Bid a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Of Intention to Make Acquisitions and Improvements Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Supplemental Assessment District 7. Report by Associate Planner - Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Variances for Lot Coverage and FAR at 2 Audrey Court Applicant: Appellants: APN: Tyler Phillips Michael & Kathleen King 058-231-10 COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest -- January 20, 2006 Town Council Weekly Digest - January 27,2006 ADJOURNMENT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - Note: These items are tentative until they aooear on the final aaenda . State of the District Report - Supervisor McGlashan - (February 15) . Appeal by Fred & Casey Hannahs of Design Review Approval for 430 Ridge Road - (February 15) . Adoption of Audit Report for FY ending June 30, 2005 & Reallocation of Reserves FY 2005-06 - (February 15) . Town Council/Staff Retreat Goals and Objectives - (February 15) . Adoption of Revised Records Retention Schedule - (February 15) . Operational Review of Community Development Department - (February 15) . General Plan and Zoning Text Amendments - (February 15) . Interviews for Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions & Committees - (March 1) . Recognition of Outgoing and Past Town Commissioners - (March 1) . Tiburon Glen Precise Development Plan - (March 1) . Lyford Cove Utility Undergrounding Supplemental Assessment District - Ballot Count - (March 15) . Appeal by Abraham Valentino of fines for expired building permit - (March 15) Agenda - Town Council Meeting February 1, 2006 Page 4 of 4 . Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Recommendation to Adopt Supplemental Engineer's Report and Direct related Actions - (March) . Report on Proposed Hawthorne Terrace Utility Undergrounding Assessment District - (March) . Award of Contract and Budget Amendment for Organizational and Operational Review of the Belvedere- Tiburon Jt. Recreation Department . Consideration of new Light Standards on Tiburon Boulevard . Trees on Fountain Plaza ~ iJlJ. / TOWN COUNCIL MlMrrEs. - CALL TO ORDER ROLL. CALL PImSENT: COUNCILMB!v.1BERS: PRiSRNT:....., Berger, Fredericks, Gram, SlavitZ, ~mlmC,' . - .t}oW11Ma~ll~ct;io~tyJ;~;~~~~c~et~~"G~~~ty . D@v~lQP.e.nt~d~n,In~Dij-eet~J?~f~~iic W~~fa~Qi'<<?hiet:~fBqije()9~_~)~.eetotQf .Ad~;l1i'~tra~y~$~G~s'$i'.. 'all,. ~c()j~t'Goep~a.t0f . '.7fT~Y'Ba$$~t\:/V_\bt<' .' :"'~;,~~i;'/ . :'f.' ~~.:.",~. ,~.<,.."i~~,' ' '~-i/ . ,,:., t):~ .~~r;l.<" ~ Prior t():tb.e,'l~~ar.,meeting,;'li~~nrJ!~lat~6:4!'\R.ttl~:,.'~~.'~~~'!C1QUhoil<<lStia,Gl9~tl'\$eB8iell.',tQ:.. . di$eusstk./f~~0_; , . ., .' . ,~;"'", . ,'.:.' CLQ$MSES'SION , .. .' '". "."/.~" <;,,;', ..... .. .', > .": " Mayor ~~t1.t.s~q~t"nq,~tip~~~.:tak~, mi~g~~;~~$j't+h ctl~~~~~r;~'f"}'Vrrll :~~~~..,($QqN~~~'.~;~~$g~~~J.n~~UQ1V . ~seetip~,(~~~S~~i~a)~:"..\;..'.,.. 8k:i/iano~,\~9f:~!!" ........,. .' q~u.tzt}1:f!f~. ...: llP.~,.~1!l.::,...v.:'M.t,lr'tlK/~i:~(j)!JiJP.flifJiJ?, .\\!: . ,. , , ., .<. , -, . ; ,,~,}.~,~ ..ij~~~~~ . "; , *plle. CONSE~.~~~~.", ... ,.~::",;" . .'d; .'" 1. . AjJprovalefTowD CouneD Minutes -11W:ualy 4, 2006 2. fl~Q,..~e._..oll.~IJY Plf~Cto~Of,~~J!I~,~_~~'~~~':~,~~l~catig~:~tsR~~e$... fofFY 1005-08 ,;, . _ ,~,,' '.. . - ~...-~. '\- '", -~ i"" . Tolfm .council Minutes # a2~~(}()6 !anU41"J! {~,2(J06 . Ragel 3. . . , " '.. . '.,: . ' . ',' .' , . ..- Town Manager McIntyre asked that Item No.2 be oontinued to a dat(? Ul;lc~. . Council ~ "~",. ., , conc~ed. ,; : MOTION: Mov~d: . Vote:: Town CoutzeilA.(inuteS # ()2~'0(l,6 these monies were received by the Town, the property owners in the district would be reimbursed accordingly. He also said that it appeared that Rule 20A funds were not available for use by the district at this time. The Interim Director said that Council could still cancel the project but noted that over $600,000 in costs that had already been incurred would still result in a per parcel assessment of approximately $241 for the life of the bonds. Mr. Bernardi said that if Council decided to go fOlWard with the project, and allow the property owners to vote on the supplemental assessment, the ballots would be mailed out with a supplemental assessment notice and be counted on March 15 at a public hearing before the Town Council. He said that staff recommended this course of action. -Councilmember Fredericks asked if the reduced pavement patching would [ adversely] affect the life of the pavement. Mr. Bernardi said that it would not, and described how the trenches would be paved after construction. Vice Mayor Gram asked about the increased costs for labor and materials. Mr. Bernardi verified that the numbers were maximum amounts. Mayor Smith asked if the Rule 20A funds were "off the table" due to the Town's policy (which gives priority to other streets within the Town limits). Mr. Bernardi said this was the case and agreed with the Mayor's statement that the policy could be changed. Councilmember Slavitz clarified that in the case of Lyford Cove, the engineer's report had found there was no public benefit to the project and therefore the district was not eligible for Rule 20A funding. Town Manager McIntyre concurred with this statement, adding that it was stated in both the original and supplemental engineer's reports. Councilmember Berger asked about the amount of additional construction management costs and said that the contract should stipulate the number of site visits; otherwise, Berger said the maximum amount was likely to be spent. Project Coordinator Bassett said that it was necessary to have an inspector on site and that the amount reflected the additional days the inspector would have to be on site. Councilmember Slavitz asked about the numbers that comprised the Maggiora & Ghilotti construction contract. In addition to material and labor, Mr. Bernardi said that the rest of the amount was overhead, equipment rental and profit. Councilmember Slavitz asked about the cost of issuing supplemental bonds. Project Coordinator Bassett confirmed that the only cost that was "extra" was the $48,000+ of "miscellaneous" costs for the paying agent, printing, registration, servicing and filing fees; the other bond costs would have been incurred anyway as a percentage of the bond itself. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18, 2006 Page 3 Vice Mayor Gram said that at the lastpublic hearing, it was stated that the supplemental assessment would be around $300 - $350. He asked what the new average supplemental assessment would be, based on the numbers presented tonight. Ms. Bassett said that the supplemental assessment would be $550 per year, on average. Mayor Smith summed up the supplemental bond assessment as being comprised of construction costs plus contingencies, plus "soft costs," for a total of $2,260,000. Councilmember Slavitz asked if this was "the bottom line." Ms. Bassett confirmed this statement. Mayor Smith asked if this number "got bigger," would the Town have to pay. Town Manager McIntyre answered affirmatively. Mayor Smith opened the public hearing. . Maxine Coplin, Lyford Cove resident since 1962, referenced an article in the Marin Independent Journal about the recent power outages in Novato wherein residents were without telephone and cable because underground [utility] vaults had flooded and repairs still had to be made to restore power; . Robert Ellsberg, Lyford Cove utility underground organizer in the 70's, said that Paradise Drive was one of only two thoroughfares in and out of town and asked whether the use of Rule 20A funds in the district might be revisited, adding that the Council had supported their use in the 70's; . Rick Barberi, Mar East, listed 10 reasons to "cut loose and bury" the project (see footnote #1); . Tom Young, Centro East, said he voted yes on original bond because $20k was a "reasonable price;" said that the additional costs were a result of an "incredible screw-up" which the Council had presided over and that going forward, "someone else" should pay; . Todd Moody, professional engineer, said he too had seen estimates "go both ways;" thought people would still vote in favor of the assessment and that property values would rise and the neighborhood would look better; . Dave Stollmeyer, Mar East, referenced a letter from Diane Lynch (showing tiered assessments in a Berkeley undergrounding district) and said Lyford residents should be given the same options; 1 - alleged gerrymandering of district; assessment based on aesthetics; no significant examples of power poles every being down; construction estimate off by $1.4 million; precipitous action by Council to bond before bids received; faulty reasoning to go forward because $616,000 had already been spent; transparency in numbers; unknown whether Comcast will pay; statements that Rule 20A funds would not be available until 2007 have now "vaporized;" no new bidders resulting in compromised position; Town's ability to bank overages; unknown costs of trench maintenance. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January J 8, 2006 Page 4 Mayor Smith clarified that there was no option to revisit the method of assessment at this point in time (without terminating the existing district and starting anew). . Mr. Stollmeyer continued that the reduction in number of street lights would leave his street "pitch black" which was a safety hazard; . Gary Hansen, Lyford Cove resident, asked about seismisity; said that he was in the 1964 Anchorage earthquake where entire streets opened up and it took nine months to get federal money to repair them, during which time significant utilities were out of service; . Claus Meinberg, Mar East, advised the Council to "go ahead and finish the proj ect or we will never get it done;" that undergrounding would enhance the entire neighborhood and that the "wires will only get bigger" as time goes by; . Rod Decker, Lyford Cove, asked about Harris' track record of meeting estimates; said the increase was "not modest" and asked why the Town did not pay for the misjudgment; With regard to the estimates, Councilmember Fredericks said that she knew of at least two CAL/TRANS proj ects that had also come in over bid around the same time. Mayor Smith said that the Council was aware of the risk in going to bid before bond but that on reverse, the up-front subscription costs would have been significantly higher to the proponents of the district; said that next time the Town might do it differently. . Mr. Decker said that the costs were 100% over projections; Project Coordinator Bassett said that the number was actually 50%. Mayor Smith said that $1.4 million was in excess of the engineer's estimate but that the other costs were actually what it would take to go to bond again. Ms. Bassett added that the incremental cost was about $50,000. . Mr. Decker said that many people who voted in favor of the district had "strategized" their budgets and now faced an additional liability; he also asked about the status of lateral estimates. Ms. Bassett said that the estimates for lateral connections had come in "very high" and that she had advised property owners to obtain their own estimates because the Town did not have a contract to perform this work. . Bruce Portner, Centro East, said that he was in favor of the district because in future it would cost a "whole lot more;" said that "we pay to live in a community lik~ this." Mayor Smith closed the public hearing. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 5 Town Manager McIntyre said that the entire "team" had worked with the district to get to this point; he reiterated that Jones, Hall (bond counsel) and Wulff, Harisen (bond underwriters) had stated that they would reduce their costs associated with the supplemental assessment. Councilmember Slavitz said that the Council had hear "loud and clear" the shock, concern and outrage of the residents in Lyford Cove concerning the estimate overages. He said that the Council was surprised and shocked, as well, but that the more they looked into it for what went wrong, they could not find a "smoking gun. "Rather, Slavitz said that they found that other agencies had experienced similar problems with bidding in recent past and that after two rounds of bids, the Council had accepted the facts as they were, as the "price of the project." Councilmember Slavitz noted that many of the costs contained in the supplemental bid were contingencies that, if not spent, would be returned to the district. He also noted that many of the costs would have been incurred whether the district had gone to bond once or twice. Councilmember Slavitz said that the Town could offer the following: to guarantee the contract; he also proposed that the Town contribute the additional costs associated with the supplemental bond issue (roughly $48,000 per the staffreport). He said that the Town could not change the method of assessment, the district engineers, or the reality of the bids themselves. Councilmember Berger commended Councilmember Slavitz and concurred with his remarks. He said that he applauded the idea of the Town contributing the aforementioned money in order to make a "frustrating situation as painless as possible." Councilmember Fredericks echoed these comments and noted that the only way to have avoided these incremental costs would have been to have the engineer's report completed "up front" which would have been more expensive; she said that the district had received 70% support in the first ballot and said that it was appropriate to give the community another chance to vote. Vice Mayor Gram concurred that the change in policy was the reduction of the up front "risk" money; he said that the Town had been told by the proponents th~t the district might not have "flown" otherwise. Mayor Smith said that he empathized with the anger and frustration that had been expressed but agreed with Councilmember Slavitz that there was "no where to point the finger." He said that the Council was doing its best to make the situation palatable and that the undergrounding, if it moved forward, would be a positive thing for the neighborhood and the community as a whole. Mayor Smith agreed that the Town should pay the additional incremental bond costs. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 6 Town Manager McIntyre said that the engineer's report would be modified and the ballot would be drawn up to reflect these and other cost reductions. Moved: Vote: To adopt the resolution preliminarily adopting the supplemental engineer's report which would reflect the changes in numbers, as discussed. Gram, seconded by Berger AYES: Unanimous MOTION: 5. Recommendation by Planning Manager - .Amendment to Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan for additional FAR at 20 Baccharis Place a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Approving an Amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan (PD#45) for Property located at 20 Baccharis Place - Assessor Parcel No. 034-394-15 Director of Community Development Anderson noted a correction in the staff report to reflect that the proposed amendment did not exceed the basic FAR; he also stated that the neighbors had "signed off' on the project. Mayor Smith opened the public hearing. Mr. Brown, applicant, said that it was a simple request. Mayor Smith closed the public hearing. Councilmember Berger said that the Planning Commission had done a good job reviewing the application. Vice Mayor Gram said that he would vote in favor of the amendment because it fell within a narrow exception in the Town's rules. Mayor Smith summarized that the application was for an amendment that did not impact the neighbors, was within the existing footprint of the house, and did n<?~ exceed the FAR. Councilmember Fredericks said that if the deck was extended it could be argued that the footprint of the house had been extended; therefore, a problem might arise wherein future applications to enclose the area below the might come before the Council. She recommended that language be added to the resolution that would preclude enclosing any under-deck areas of the residence in the future. Mr. Browne stated he had no objection to this condition. Council concurred. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 7 MOTION: To adopt resolution, as amended. Moved: Berger, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous REGULAR AGENDA 6. Presentation by Chamber of Commerce - Funding & Scheduling for Friday Nights on Main 2006 Steve Sears, representil).g the Chamber, presented the Council with the proposed scheduled, beginning May 5 and ending the second weekend in October, which included two additional Friday nights from the previous year. He also asked the Council for approve police that might be needed for the events and said that the restaurants and Chamber of Commerce would assume the other costs associated with producing "Friday Nights on Main." Mr. Sears said that this year vendors would be allowed to participate for a fee; he added that Town Manager McIntyre had suggested that if other local non-profit groups or public agencies wanted to participate, they should be allowed to show for free. Mr. Sears said that the Chamber had agreed to this request, and that they were in the process of creating guidelines. He said that the $25 fee would go to the Chamber. Councilmember Fredericks asked if there would be amplified voice or music during the 24 evenings. Mr. Sears said that once a month there might be music, for instance, a mariachi band on May 5. He said that the Chamber would seek appropriate approval [permit] from the Town for these occasions. Councilmember Berger noted that there was a German band last year during Oktoberfest. Ms. Fredericks said that someone had screamed into a microphone during the Fireman's Ball last year and that it could be heard all the way in her neighborhood. Mayor Smith asked about the number of police that would be needed and whether the City of Belvedere would also contribute (to police presence). Chief Odetto said that initially the Tiburon Police Department had two officers present but had reduced it to one over the course of the events. He said that one Belvedere officer had also participated at first but was found be unnecessary. Councilmember Berger also said that Belvedere was planning to hold some dances for teens during these evenings, and that Main Street Properties would light the area behind the theater. ChiefOdetto estimated that it had cost the Town $7,500 for police personnel in 2005. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18, 2006 Page 8 Mayor Smith suggested that there be a "not to exceed" number for 2006, in the amount of$5,000 or $6,000, and that the number of police should be monitored by the Chief, as needed. The Mayor also recommended that the Chamber pay for any overages to such an agreement. Council directed Staffto.proceed with a budget amendment. 7. Presentation by Jay MacMahon - Proposed Statue in honor of Sam Chapman Mr. MacMahon presented a proposal to Council whereby local baseball legend Sam Chapman would be honored through the installation of a bronze sculpture on a bench at the Tiburon Ferry Plaza. He said that he had known Sam for 50 years and that he would turn 90 on April 11. Mr. MacMahon said that no public funds would be involved in the project, which would be funded by residents and businesses in Belvedere and Tiburon. He estimated the proj ect cost to be between $36,000 and $40,000. Mr. MacMahon submitted an updated list of business owners who had endorsed the project to the Council. He noted that Mrs. Laleh Zelinsky had indicated that she would support both the statue and its proposed location, and said that Kathy Chapman, Sam's daughter, had received a similar response from Mrs. Chong Cook. In addition, he said that Town Historian Bran Fanning endorsed the proj ect. Mr. MacMahon said that the Heritage & Arts Commission had unanimously approved the project in concept in March 2005. He said that the Commissiop. had deemed the Ferry Plaza bench to be the best location; he said that this location was significant in that the statue would face the approximate location of the field where Mr. Chapman used to play. According to McMahon, the Commission suggested that an information plaque, similar to the historic trail plaques installed by the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation, be installed to describe the significance of the statue. Mr. MacMahon reviewed Mr. Chapman's athletic career; he said that the last time that CAL had won the Rose Bowl was 67 years ago when Mr. Chapman was on th~ team. He also enumerated his accomplishments as a baseball player, drafted directly out of CAL, to the Philadelphia Athletics. Mr. Chapman interrupted his baseball career to go to war, according to MacMahon, when he joined the Navy in 1942-1945. He ended his baseball career in 1951 with the Cleveland Indians, and was subsequently inducted into five halls of fame. Mr. MacMahon said that Mr. Chapman was the best athlete to come out of Marin and certainly to come from Tiburon. In addition, he said that his qualities of integrity and humility made him an exemplary model for youth in Tiburon and the County. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 9 MacMahon said that the only issue raised by the Heritage & Arts Commission was the question of setting a precedent (for other requests to install commemorative statues in public space); he said that it would not be a precedent if it were made clear that this man was a regionally and nationally known star with family roots in Tiburon; that this was a "one of a kind" tribute. Kaleen (Kathy) Chapman, daughter, said that the seed for the idea had been planted 20 years ago when her father had been asked to be Grand Marshal in a parade to honor Tiburon' s 100 years of railroad history. She said that he was an innately kind and inclusive man and that he could be seen as an "historical face" of Tiburon. She added that the sculpture would be an interesting piece of local history. Mill Valley artist Gloria Nusse described the material (bronze) and concept of the sculpture- Sam sitting on the bench with a bat in hand. She said that it would be interactive in that people could sit next to him for photographs and the like. She said that the mounting details would have to be worked out but said that it would have to be "bronze on bronze." Ms. Nusse noted her experience working with public agencies, including a recent installation at Yosemite National Park, and said that she looked forward to the project. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the sculpture could be forged and installed for $34,000. Ms. Nusse replied that it was the price of the sculpture only. Chris Morrison, Ark Row, said that he had joined the committee because it was an excellent project; said that it would become a focal point of the ferry plaza and that it shouldn't be located "in a ball field somewhere." He said that the drawings were preliminary; that the only opposition he had encountered was from one person in Point Tiburon who was concerned about their view. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the residents ofPt. Tiburon had received notice of this meeting. Chris Morrison replied that he had invited the person to come to the meeting and that some Pt. Tiburon residents had signed the petition in favor of the project. Mayor Smith asked what the Council was being asked to consider this evening. Town Manager McIntyre said that the Council should give feedback to Mr. MacMa40n and the conimittee. Bill Kuhn, Belvedere resident and member of Sunset Rotary, said that his organization supported the project. He said that he had thought about other locations, such as one of the school fields or Strawberry, but said that Sam was a Tiburon boy and that the location was perfect. .Don Davis, Corinthian Island resident, said that he met Sam in 1951 or 1952; said that he was a strong but gentle man, and humble. He said that he could recommend the project to commemorate a "good friend" and a "first class nice guy." Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 10 Fred Montegani, Tiburon native born in 1918, gave additional historical background on Sam and his own baseball experience with the Tiburon TimeClocks; said that Sam had gone on to "put Tiburon on the map" in those days. Mayor Smith closed the public hearing. The Mayor said that he was a strong supporter of the project for several reasons. He agreed that the ferry plaza would be enhanced and that it was the best location; he said that it did not impact any views because "people sit [on benches] too." He said that he had discussed the issue with several Pt. Tiburon boardmembers. Mayor Smith said that it was important to let today's kids see the Town's history and to have someone to look up to; that baseball was about having heroes and dreams and that this sculpture would provide a link to this idea. He noted that the Town had recently approved a fountain in honor of one of its citizens, Mr. Zelinsky, and added that the Town lacked this kind of artwork. Councilmember Fredericks asked that serious examination be given to other points of views and that the larger questions, such as who deserves a memorial, be answered. She said that it would be a "sad task" to have to choose. Councilmember Fredericks said that the Town had adopted a policy in order to limit the placement of plaques and benches in public space and that past applications for public art in the waterfront area had been denied. She said that the idea of keeping the area with "compelling views of the Bay" pristine was worth considering. That being said, Councilmember Fredericks said that perhaps this project would be an exception due to Mr. Chapman's historical ties with Tiburon; however, she said that there should be a serious investigation into other locations, as well. Councilmember Berger said that there was no doubt in his mind that the project would receive funding. He added that there might have to be room on a bench for Tiburon athletes Johnny Moseley and Pam Healy, as well. Berger said that the committee should proceed with its efforts to work out the details. He said that the sculpture was a way to keep telling the history of Tiburon. When asked about the proposed location, Berger concurred that the siting was good, facing the old ball field, and added that it was "exactly the right spot." Councilrnember Gram said he, too, was in favor of the location. He said that he would like to see the total cost of the package and to have the issues of ongoing maintenance and possible vandalism addressed. He also said that he would like to see how the committee planned to display the plaque and asked that it not detract from the artwork itself. Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 11 Councilmember Slavitz agreed that Sam "is a legendary person." He said that he had served on the Heritage & Arts Commission when the "Memory Book" was instituted [in lieu or plaques and benches] and that it just did not seem to be enough. However, Slavitz said that he was concerned about how this sculpture would work with the other public art installation nearby and hoped that it would all work together and not be out of character. He said that he was in favor of the idea and thought that the location was appropriate. Mr. MacMahon asked what procedure should be followed to pursue the project. Mayor Smith directed Mr. MacMahon to prepare a formal proposa~ and address the specific issues raised by the Council, and that mock-ups and material samples would be helpful, as well. Item continued. 8. Presentation by Dr. Tom Cromwell- Disaster Preparedness for Tiburon Peninsula Item continued without hearing. 9. Report by Director of Community Development - Options to Fill Planning Commission Vacancy Because the Council was not prepared to interview commission applicants prior to its March 1 meeting, Director Anderson recommended that a former Mayor or Planning Commissioner be appointed on an interim basis in order to reach a quorum for the Belvedere Tennis Club application hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission on February 22. Council directed Anderson to return with some names for Council's consideration and to schedule an interim appointment. COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - January 6, 2006 Town Council Weekly Digest - January 13, 2006 Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m., to the next regular meeting scheduled for February 1,2006. PAUL SMITH, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes # 02-2006 January 18,2006 Page 13 . . - , . . .' . ...' , . . - . , " ~ ... .; "t!' . . '. '. ~/,>~-':.~' '. "., '..~.,. ,. . . ... . ~' il . . .... ..:. · I!I . .. ". '. . . ~ · . . . . . . . · AG~NnAI'l'l\1 ~ ! i I ! l ! I ! r i l ! I I t ! ~. f t I . f' f I f. l I ~ r TO:.' FROM: . SUBJECT: ~ . ,'. .:~..,.......' ...;:. , ...... . ~ - , ' ! . [ I ! r r I. f:. . ! l r: t . Town of Tiburon STAFFREPOltT AGENDA ITEM 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . TO: , . . . . . ~ . .' . - / FROM: BRI~~ M.'STOTl[ ;ADIIUNISTRATIVE'&FIN~Nel~~ ItNAlVST ;;~ ~~~~ . ~~;;;~~~~;~; ~T.E .S~~.~~L~.~E;;;; ~~~. . . . MAYOR&MI$MBJ:ft$OFTHE TOWN COUNCil t~e.t()wnaf 'fi~uron~ets ~.ll~O#'~~~~tl~Q~~.~~~~lt~ll~j~tl.~teeS reG9verec,l.(orst;Df time. T11eh'!>\lI1), .~...~.~..~ .~. fOTclt\ . in.ttleTtll~'~.",~1,I!iY Rate Sd'1e(jUle. (3urf~ntly- ~(9sol~ti~nNO~ .Q7-~~05,wHio,b.w~~:.adopte~~~. 'F~tJ~ual:yt~,;~~~;., .. -;; , .' " ' .- -} - . ,-... - ':'" ~ Yfi :',.-' ,';( ~'~~~IY.~)It1>~tl~:~~~~1J1~1~~~~~~~.~ill ~rt~~~~rje l1UCh~~iq~.V'/. AElj~ .~~i;Iri.fi'5r~ '''f~.\$' . Hc)urly~~te-SgA,dul,.'.' ..' . ." .,.. ' .' ,- - . The drijft.,.pu~Y Rate~dlei$ ~~i~ttl.~nVil~e~r~~~~.f(l ~ i TQWnqf ~~.~PI.y~int~s e1~~fj'~~~; Tile revl~~uie~Gt$seljftYatl~ beriefif$iJlfJt~ases'sinae th~ pre\li~u$.up~at~in'2(\)()S. '. ' ;' . ,.'. ' , ~ - ' ~ ~: ::-'-- . -. '- . - " ,: - ' . '. .' ' ,', - , . , < - ' -' - , ; , "RE~O~~~rtQ~ f " " Itis.rCi!~mmen,cJeathatt~e. town':OouQoiLal":ioptthe new.. HO\Jr1y.Fi~te .$oh6)~Yle ~' : ':':"",_,:'-':!'_," :t:':'{\>.:.,_._ ',_.,::':;,'~,' "I~" '_,-,>.;.:,_::.,-'~( < .' ":',,-,/;' - :'. '" :-.<'...: ~ ' " "-": -"'. "". . : , - '., ' ,-' , " '.. E~~NI(~tt~ '.. . . ... ...... . ...... ...... '.. .., ... ... .... . .... . . . .... .' 1. . Reso.lution adopting a revisetJH'GUr~.YRate:SGhedule forthe.town ()fTiburon p~r$onnel '<'. RESOLUTION NO. XX-2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A REVISED HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE FOR TOWN OF TIBURON PERSONNEL WHEREAS, the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that any changes to the Town's filing and processing fees be set forth by Resolution of the Town Council, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Town Council that such fees be used to reimburse the Town . for the costs of providing the services for which the fees are assessed, thereby maintaining productive and efficient service levels commensurate with the work demands within the Town's various departments, and WHEREAS, from time .to time it is necessary to revise these fees.to reflect actual costs incurred by Town personnel in the normal course of its operation and according'to its obligations to administer State statutory requirements under the authority of Town ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Town's current fee program charges by hourly rate for processing certain applications and performing certain services, as set forth in the ~dopted Fee Schedules of the Town of'Tiburon; said hourly rates being set forth in Resolution 07- 2005; and WHEREAS, increases in salary and benefits of some Town Officials have occurred since adoption of Resolution 07-2005, causing it to be in need of revision; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to ensure that the Town recovers from project applicants the cost of all services that the Town provides by adopting this resolution and by requiring all project applicants to enter into agreements providing for the advance deposit of estimated fees; the further payment of any required .fees in excess of the deposit; and the refund of any portion of the deposit not expended in the processing of the application; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has provided required notice and held a public hearing pursuant to state law and local ordinances; and Tiburon Hourly Rate Schedule 1 Effective April 1,2006 WHEREAS, the Council finds that the hourly rate schedule established by this resolution will not exceed the cost of the services to be provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the Hourly Rate Fee Schedule for Town of Tiburon Personnel, attached hereto as Exhibit A, said Hourly Rate Fee Schedule to become effective 60 days from the passage of this resolution and supersede Resolution No. 07-2005. All applicants for permits that may be subject to the fees adopted by this Resolution shall be required to enter into agreements with the Town for the payment of said fees. Town Department Heads and their designees are hereby authorized to negotiate and execute said agreements on behalf of the Town, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on February 1, 2006, by the following vote: A YES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PAUL SMITH, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Hourly Rate Schedule 2 Effective April 1,2006 Exhibit" A" 2006 HOURLY RATE FEE SCHEDULE FOR TOWN OF TIBURON PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HOURL Y RATE Town Manager Town Attorney Director of Administrative Services IT Coordinator Town Clerk Financial & Administrative Analyst Office Assistant III $135.06 $117.14 $83.56 $74.89 $65.24 $65.26 $48.75 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director of Community Development Planning Manager Associate Planner Planning Secretary Building Official Building Inspector Building Permit Clerk Records Management Clerk $96.18 $73.91 $58.68 $48.75 $71.30 $63.76 $55.32 $55.29 POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Chief Police Lieutenant Police Sergeant Police Officer Police Service Aide Police Secretary $108.89 $87.97 $77.39 $69.04 $44.15 $49.32 PUBLIC WORKS Director of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works Assistant Superintendent of PW Public Works Foreman Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker I Administrative Aide $106.88 $77.55 $63.81 $57.57 $50.46 $48.0 J $48.75 NOTES: 1. Hourly rate adjustments not to exceed 50/0 may be adopted annually, without a public hearing, based on Town Council approved salary and benefit adjustments. Any annual adjustments to this Hourly Rate Schedule exceeding 5% shall require a public hearing. 2. This annual adjustment clause is valid for no more than five years from the first day of the fiscal year (July 1) nearest to its adoption date. Additional adjustments beyond that date shall require adoption of a revised hourly rate schedule following a public hearing. Effective 4/1/2006 Exhibit "A" REVISED 2006 HOURL Y RATE FEE SCHEDULE FOR TOWN OF TIBURON PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HOURLY RATE Town Manager Town Attorney Director of Administrative Services IT Coordinator Town Clerk Financial & Administrative Analyst Office Assistant III $135.06 $117.14 $83.56 $74.89 $65.24 $65.26 $48.75 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director of Community Development Planning Manager Associate Planner Planning Secretary Building Official Building Inspector Building Permit Technician Records Management Coordinator $96.18 $73.91 $58.68 $48.75 $71.30 $63.76 $55.32 $55.29 POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Chief Police Captain Police Sergeant Police Officer Police Service Aide Police Secretary $108.89 $87.97 $77.39 $69.04 $44.15 $49.32 PUBLIC WORKS Director of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works Assistant Superintendent ofPW Public Works Foreman Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker I Administrative Aide $106.88 $77.55 $63.81 $57.57 $50.46 $48..0 I $48.75 NOTES: 1. Hourly rate adjustments not to exceed 50/0 may be adopted annually, without a public hearing, based on Town Council approved salary and benefit adjustments. Any annual adjustments to this Hourly Rate Schedule exceeding 5% shall require a public hearing. 2. This annual adjustment clause is valid for no more than five years from the first day of the fiscal year (July 1) nearest to its adoption date. Additional adjustments beyond that date shall require adoption of a revised hourly rate schedule following a public hearing. LATE MAIL # .3 Effective 4/1/2006 4'jJi~ .. ............:...................:...:......... ..:.....................................:.... .TH' J o:.....~ Zi~ ~,,; .~...........................:............................'.............................:....:'....... a' I [ i ! 1 ~ t I ~::,e\i;l. r '(1.':, I~:'! 1tJ)';." !..)! l ~'. f .~..;'{"...:.:..,. f -II ~j~"l l .~::.' ll. r , 1i.~ : .>,.: l :.;;i'.j II',! "" If,.~,.i:,j ! CD"" t:,a:. ! .S.......'...:.......... ~ ~-'..,. ~ f 1:J.. !: cp...." ,rp....... I~. ~ Q.....: ..... ~") i r~. 1 I ~'~ ~:-- t . ,t.; Town of Tib,u.fon STAFFRlpOK.T AGEND4 ITEM b, . . . -& . . .' . . . .' ';.- ,'~ ""., . '.," ~ . . . ~ . . ,. . .. . . . . . . &_ o. . . . _ . . . .. . . . . . TO: ,May~randM~m~rs of.he Town Council . FROM: January f!l. .2006 1of~ ' :1' 'I!.' ~ ,,{; ~.# . '-I d,ahuary ~:?;. 2006 . 2'pf5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT ............................................ Alternate Sources of Funding There are a limited number of funding sources from which to draw to make up the shortfall. 1. Town Funds: The cost for undergrounding utilities is typically borne by the residents who will benefit from these efforts. The Town does not have the financial resources available to underground existing utilities in all neighborhoods within Town boundaries. 2. The Utilities a. Rule 20A: PG&E's franchise with the State of California requires it to provide a limited amount of funding for the purpose of undergrounding utilities to certain qualifying areas within the franchise boundaries. The Town of Tiburon policy identifies Tiburon Boulevard as the priority for use of these funds, and Trestle Glen as next in-line for funding once the undergrounding of all overhead wires along Tiburon Boulevard has been completed. b. Comcast: One of the utilities that share the "joint trench" in the undergrounding district is the cable provider, Com cast. There is a dispute between the Town and Comcast as to the financial extent to which Comcast is required to pay its share of the trench. The Town is currently in discussions with Comcast, and no agreement has been reached. When, and if, funds from Com cast become available, they will be returned to the District members. 3. Property Owners: During the meetings addressing the cost overrun for the Lyford Cove district, the Town Council identified a preference to allow the property owners in that District to decide on whether or not they want a supplemental assessment to fund the shortfall between available funds and the cost of construction. Staff and the District Engineers have also reviewed the design for opportunities to achieve cost savings. One suggestion for reducing costs to the project has been to utilize pad mounted transformers instead of subsurface transformers; which would result in approximately $200,000 in PG&E fees savings. This option has been incorporated into the bid documents as a bid alternate. Canceling the Project The Town Council can also opt to cancel the project at its sole discretion citing lack of adequate funding to carry out the work associated. Bonds would be recalled and paid off with the existing funds. If the Council abandons the project, or if the property owners vote against the supplemental assessment, it should be noted that expenses already incurred by the District would still need to be paid. As of the end of January 27,2006 3 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT .............................................. December 2005, the Town has paid out nearly $700,000 in expenses. Additionally, the costs associated with the early call on the bond must also include a prepayment premium on the early call, and interest earnings will be applied. These costs to property owners would continue to appear on property tax bills for the life of the bonds. Those property owners who chose to pre-pay their assessments would be refunded their prepayment less their share of the expenses already incurred. Process for proceeding with a Supplemental District In order to bring the supplemental assessment to a vote of the property owners, the Town Council must. first adopt a resolution of intention (Exhibit 2) directing a Supplemental Engineer's Report to be made and filed, to include the additional costs of improvements and incidental expenses required to complete construction of this ,project, and identifying the additional assessments. It should be noted that a Public Hearing is not required at this stage, although Staff does recommend taking public comments. It should also be noted that the adoption of the Resolution of Intention does not bind the Town to any further action; but it is required prior to a Council decision for a vote of property owners regarding any proposed assessments. Contractor bids will be obtained, and if additional funds are needed, included in an Engineer's Report. The Engineer's Report will reflect the actual bid amount, and a ballot would be based on an actual, not an estimated, cost which .would include the actual construction costs plus contingencies and the incidental costs associated with the sale of the supplemental bonds. The next step in the process is the preliminary approval of the Supplemental Engineer's Report, at which time the Town Council can set a Public Hearing, and direct the mailing of the Notices of proposed assessments and the ballots to property owners. Notices and ballots must be mailed to all property owners at least 45 days prior to a public hearing and ballot tabulation. Our proposed schedule for these proceedings is as follows: February 2006 Solicit construction bids Week of March 6 Town Council Special Meeting to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report, set date for a Public Hearing, and direct the mailing of the Notices of proposed assessments and the ballots May 3 Public Hearing & Ballot tally June 5 Award Construction Contract January 27,2006 4 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT .............................................. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council take the following actions: a) Accept public comment b) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to make Acquisitions and Improvements c) Approve the plans and specifications for the Del Mar Valley Rule 208 Utility undergrounding Assessment district and authorize staff to solicit bids EXHIBITS 1. Construction Drawings .-- S<f r1't-vc k 2. Resolution of Intention January 27, 2006 5of5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON OF INTENTION TO MAKE ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF TlBURON Del Mar Vallev Utilitv Underaroundina SUDDlemental Assessment District RESOLVED by the Town Council (the "Council") of the Town of Tiburon (the ''Town''), County of Marin (the "County"), State of California, as follows: 1. Prior Proceedings. On June 4, 2003, this Council adopted Resolution No. 19- 2003 declaring its intention to order the making of the acquisitions and improvements described therein with respect to the Town's Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (the "Districr), and on July 13, 2005, this Council adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of limited obligation improvement bonds secured by assessments with respect to the District (the "Original Assessments"). 2. Intention. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and that this Council intends to order the making of, the. acquisitions and improvements described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof in and for the Town's proposed Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Supplemental Assessment District (the "Supplemental Assessment Districf') . 3. Law Applicable. Except as herein otherwise provided for the issuance of bonds, all of the work shall be done as pro~ided in the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of California (the "Act"). The Supplemental Assessment District shall constitute a supplemental assessment district to be established under Section 10426 of the Act. 4. Nature and Location of and Grades for Improvements. All of the work and improvements are to be constructed at the places and in the particular locations, of the forms, sizes, dimensions and materials, and at the lines, grades and elevations, . as shown and delineated upon the plans, profiles and specifications to be made therefor, as hereinafter provided. There is to be excepted from the work above described any of such work already done to line and grade and marked excepted or shown not to be done on the plans, profiles and specifications. Whenever .any public way is herein referred to .as running between two public ways, or from or to any public way, the intersections of the public ways referred to are included to the extent that work is shown on the 'plans to be done therein. The streets and highways are or will be more particularly shown in the records in the office of the County Recorder of the County and shall be shown upon the plans.. 5. Change of Grade. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many cases the work and improvements will bring the finished work to a grade different from that formerly existing, and that to the extent the grades are hereby changed and that the work will be done to the changed grades. . 6. Work on Private Property. In cases where there is any disparity in level or size between the improvements proposed to be made herein and private property and where it is more economical to eliminate such disparity by work on the private property than by adjustment of the work on public property, it is hereby determined that it is in the public interest and more economical to do such work on private property to eliminate such disparity. In such cases, the work op private property shall, with the written consent of the owner of the property, be done and the actual cost thereof may be added to the proposed assessment of the lot on which the work is to be done. 7. Official Grades. This Council does hereby adopt and establish as the official grades for the work the grades and elevations to be shown upon the plans, profiles and specifications. All such grades and elevations are to be in feet and decimals thereof with reference to the datum plane of this.Town. 8. Descriptions - General. .The descriptions of the acquisitions and improvements and the termini of the work contained in this Resolution are general in nature. All items of work do not necessarily extend for the full length of the description thereof. The plans and profiles of the work and maps and descriptions as contained in the Supplemental Engineer's Report, hereinafter directed to be made and filed, shall be controlling as to the correct and detailed description thereof. 9. Special Benefit and Boundary Map. The contemplated acquisitions and improvements, in the opinion of this Council, are of more than general or ordinary public benefit, and the costs and expenses thereof are made chargeable upon the Supplemental Assessment District, the exterior boundaries of which are shown on a map thereof on file in the . office of the Town Clerk, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. The map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory proposed to be included in Supplemental Assessment District and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the Supplemental Assessment District. 10. Public Property. This Council declares that all public streets, highways, lanes and alleys, and properties owned by any public agency or department of the United States of America, the State of ,California, the County, any city or special district, within the Supplemental Assessment District and in use in the performance of a public function shall be omitted from the assessment hereafter to be made; provided, however that to the extent found to be specially benefited, such lands shall be subject to assessment. 11. Supplemental Engineer's Report. The acquisitions and improvements are hereby referred to Harris & Associates, being a competent firm employed for the purpose hereof as Engineer of Work for the Supplemental Assessment District (the "Engineer of Work"), and the Engineer of Work is hereby directed to make and file with the Town Clerk a report in writing (the "Supplemental Engineer's Report"), presenting the fallowing: (a) Maps and descriptions of the lands and easements to be acquired, if any; (b) Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements if the improvements are not already installed. The plans and specifications do not need to be detailed and are sufficient if they show or describe the general nature, location, and extent of the improvements. If the Supplemental Assessment District is divided into zones, the plans and specifications shall indicate the class and the type of improvements to be provided for each zone. The plans or specifications may be prepared as separate documents, or either or both may be incorporated in the Supplemental Engineer's Report as a combined document. - 2 - (c) A general description of works or appliances already installed and any other property necessary or convenient for the operation of the improvements, if the works, appliances, or property are to be acquired as part of the improvements. (d) An estimate of the cost of the improvements and of the cost of lands, rights-of-way, easements, and incidental expenses in connection with the improvements, including any cost of issuing and registering the Supplemental Bonds. (e) A diagram showing, as they existed at the time of the passage of this Resolution, all of the following: (1) The exterior boundaries of the Supplemental Assessment District. (2) The boundaries of any zones within the Supplemental Assessment District. (3) The lines and dimensions of each parcel of land within the Supplemental Assessment District. Each subdivision, shall be given a separate number upon the diagram. The diagram may refer to the county assessor's maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any. parcels, in which case those maps shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimensions of the parcels. (f) A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed improvement upon the several subdivisions of land in the Supplemental Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each subdivision, respectively, from the improvement (the "Supplemental Assessments"). The Supplemental Assessments shall r~fer to the subdivisions by their respective numbers as assigned pursuant to subdivision (e). When any portion or percentage of the costs and expenses of the acquisitions and improvements is to be paid from sources other than the Supplemental Assessments (including without limitation the Original Assessments), the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be deducted from the total estimated cost and expenses of the acquisitions and improvements, and the Supplemental Assessment shall include only the' rem~inder of the estimated cost and expenses. 12. Use of Surplus. If any excess shall be realized from the assessment it shall be used, in such amounts as this Council may determine, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, for one or more of the following purposes: (a) Transfer to the general fund of this Town, provided that the amount of any such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of $1,000 or 50k of the total amount expended from the improvement fund; (b) As a credit upon the assessment and any supplemental assessment or for the redemption of bonds, or both; or (c) For the maintenance of the improvements. - 3 - 13. Contact Person. Dave Bernardi, Interim Director of Public Works, is hereby designated as. the person to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to' be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California 94920, or by calling telephone number (415) 435-7388. 14. Contracts with Others. To the extent that any of the work, rights, improvements and acquisitions indicated in the Supplemental . Engineer's Report, to be made as provided herein, are shown to be connected to the facilities, works or systems of, or are to be owned, managed and controlled by, any public agency other.than this Town, or of any public utility, it is the intention of this Council to enter into an agreement with such public agency or public utility pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 10100) of the Act, which agreement may provide for, among other matters, the ownership, operation and maintenance by such agency or utility of the works, rights, improvements and acquisitions, and may provide for the installation of all or a portion of such improvements by the agency or utility and for the providing of service to the properties in the area benefiting from the work, rights, improvements and acquisitions by ,such agency or utility in accordance with its rates, rules and regulations, and that such agreement shall become effective after proceedings have been taken for the levy of the Supplemental Assessments and sale of bonds and funds are available to carry out the terms of any such agreement. 15. Supplemental Improvement Bonds. Notice is hereby given that serial and/or term improvement bonds (the "Supplemental Bonds") to represent unpaid Supplemental Assessments, and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed such rate of interest as may be authorized by applicable law a the time of sale of the Supplemental Bonds, will be issued hereunder in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Division 10 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Bond Law"). The last installment of the Supplemental Bonds shall mature. not to exceed 39 years from the second day of September next succeeding their date. The Supplemental Bonds shall be issued in such series and shall mature in such principal. amounts at such times as shall be determined by this Council at the time of the issuance of the Supplemental Bonds. The provisions of Part 11.1 of the Bond Law, providing an alternative. procedure for the. advance payment and calling of bonds, shall apply to the Supplemental Bonds. It is the intention of this Council to create a special reserve fund pursuant to and as authorized by Part 16 of the Bond Law. It is the intention of the Town that the Town will not obligate itself to advance available funds from the treasury of the Town to cure any deficiency in the redemption fund to be created with respect to the Supplemental Bonds; provided, however, that a determination not to obligate itself shall not prevent the Town from, in its sole discretion, so advancing funds. 16. Refunding of Bonds. The Supplemental Bonds may be refunded pursuant to the provisions of Division 11.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code upon the determination of the Council of the Town that the public interest or necessity requires such refunding. Such refunding may be undertaken by the Council when, in its opinion, lower prevailing interest rates may allow reduction in the amount of the installments of principal and interest upon the Supplemental Assessments given to owners of property assessed for the works herein described. The refunding bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exqeed that which is stated in the resolution of the Council expressing its intention to issue the refunding bonds, which resolution of intention shall also set forth the maximum term of years of the refunding bonds. The refunding shall be accomplished pursuant to Division 11.5 (commencing with Section .9500) of the California Streets and Highways Code, except that, if, following the filing of the report specified in Section 9523 and any subsequent modifications of the report, the Council finds that each of the conditions specified in the resolution of intention to issue the refunding bonds is satisfied and that adjustments to the assessments are on a pro-rata basis, - 4 - EXHIBIT A TOWN OF TIBURON Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Supplemental Assessment District DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Within the Town of Tiburon, (the "Town") County of Marin., State of California, the construction and acquisition of the following public improvements, including the acquisition of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, licenses, franchises, and permits and the construction of all auxiliary work necessary and/or convenient to the accomplishment thereof in accordance. with plans and specifications to be approved by the Town: Within the area of the D.el Mar Valley Utility Undergrou~ding Assessment District and in' and along all or portions of Avenida Miraflores, Felipa Court, Hillary Drive, Howard Drive, Harn Court, 'Rowley Circle, Geldert Drive, Wilkins Court, Malvino Court, Mark Terrace, Porto Marino Drive, and Hacienda Drive, as more particularly shown on the proposed Boundary Map of. the Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District on file in the office of the Town Clerk, the installation of new, underground facnities to replace such utility lines, including all required removal of pavement, trenching, backfilling, repaving, installation of substructures, conduits, pull boxes, vaults and appurtenances and the removal of existing overhead electric, t~lephone and CATV utility lines, including existing, transformers and other overhead structures. A-1 Feb-01-06 03:43P Mahoney Architects February 1, 2006 troy Bassett Project Coord inator Wtility Undergrounding Projects T own of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Del Mar Valley Utility Underground District Mr. Bassett. 415 435 6878 P.Ol LAJE MAll'#b RECEf\iEu FES - 1 2006 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON We remain adamantly opposed to this project. We will continue to vote against it. We urge the Town Council to learn from the problems in the Lyford District. This is not affordable. This makes no sense to us. Why should we pay Harris & Associates to continue to draw up the plans that are too expensive to construct and then pick up the tab! : .c) n ,(/(, .. ( y,,1. IJ _ . .,. l~MrW-J (,go 6('6 6~:Z H~y-~ t:J/1'~ ~lu Yh~. Oe.., /-1 'fj l'V 7/1/) /\) AI' (:' ..1'/ /.~: (JL-'\..IV'~. ~ ~ - . , . '- - - . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ! f ! [ . I t 1 . . . . .. .... . . a .' . ~ . ... . . . . . -a . . . . . . '. . '. . .'. . . . . ~ .. . . . · · .' ~ " Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT ,fi; BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are two grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1 Excessive requests for Variances and Floor Area Exception Staff Response: The subject residence is currently just below the maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements for a property of its size. The additional square footage requested would not make the house significantly larger than surrounding homes. Most homes in the neighborhood exceed the Floor Area Ratio limit, and many homes in the RO-2 zoning district exceed the 150/0 lot coverage limit. One of the reasons the subject project would exceed the Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage limits is due to the existence of a secondary dwelling unit. The unit is attached to the main structure, and currently has an odd configuration. Without the expansion of the second unit, the project would remain below the permitted Floor Area Ratio. Although the Board does not generally support requests to exceed both the lot coverage and floor area limits of a property, certain circumstances create allowable exceptions. The subject prOperty would only exceed the lot coverage limits by one percent, which is not excessive. The additional square footage in this case does not contribute to view impacts, but would instead eliminate the unnecessary carport and allow for an expanded master bedroom with deck above. Goal 1, Principle 2 of the Hillside Design guidelines encourages using the roofs of lower levels the deck of upper levels. The revised project design reduced the view impacts on uphill neighbors, and reducing the amount of windows on the east elevation should eliminate the light pollution impacts from the proposed fenestration. The Town Council is encouraged to visit the appellant's home to view the story poles and evaluate any potential impacts from the excess square footage on the adjacent dwelling. Ground #2 The proposed addition and site plan improvements would be out of character with the neighborhood and in relation the site itself. Staff Response: Section 4.02.07 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance contains guidelines to be utilized in the review of Site Plan and Architectural Review applications. In reviewing these applications, the Design Review Board is instructed to evaluate whether "the height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity." This section further states that "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, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints imposed by particular site conditions" should be considered. In reviewing the initial plans for the project, the Design Review Board objected to the excessive fenestration, the imposing location of the pool and subsequent retaining walls, and the view impacts on uphill neighbors. February 1 , 2006 page 3 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . ..... ............ ..................... ......... ... The revised project design relocated the pool away from the downhill neighbor, slightly reduced the number of windows, and angled the corner of the proposed addition to improve the view for uphill neighbors. The modifications improved the relationship of the project to its surrounding neighbors in terms of privacy and view impacts. Since the lower floor addition was not highly visible and was not contributing to the view impact, the applicant only reduced the size of the upper floor addition. The reconfiguration still allowed for the addition of a library, bedroom, and expanded family room and deck on the upper level that would not impose on uphill or downhill neighbors. The revised project design reduced the privacy and view impacts on the neighborhood while still allowing for an expansion of the home that would not make the structure out of character with the neighborhood. Additionally, the height and location of the retaining walls, patio area, and fencing did not appear out C?f character with other hillside lots in the neighborhood. This type of project represents an appropriate transition between most of the homes above and below the site. It should be noted that throughout the process of this application, the appellant has requested that the existing roof be lowered. The Design Review Board can only review projects as they are submitted, and they do not require changes to existing structures. It has been suggested that lowering the roof be used as a compromising tool; however, it would be at the applicant's discretion to do so. The Design Review Board indicated that the size and scale of the project did not represent a project that was out of character with the neighborhood. Boardmember Bird noted that the excess lot coverage Variance would not contribute additional bulk to the building. Boardmember Beales characterized this as a stealth project that would not impact the mass of the building since it was converting the existing carport into living space and filling in other portions of the house. . CONCLUSION The Design Review Board followed the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of this project. The Board determined that the pool location, view impact and the excessive uphill windows were inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and gave appropriate direction to the applicant to modify the submitted plans. The revised project design substantially reduced the view impact, and was found to be consistent with the design of additions that have been approved in other redeveloping residential neighborhoods in Tiburon. The scale of the addition was found to not have significant impacts on the views or privacy of neighboring homes. The decision of the Design Review Board is supported by visits to the subject site and the adjoining properties, as well as evidence in the record. RECOMMENDA TION 1) That the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 2) That the Town Council direct Staff to return with a Resolution denying the appeal, for February 1 , 2006 page 4 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT .................................................. . adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1 . Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Revised plans showing 300/0 reduction in window area on the east elevation received December 9, 2005 4. Design Review Board Staff report dated December 1 , 2005 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 3, 2005 6. Minutes of the December 1, 2005 Design Review Board meeting 7. Minutes of the November 3, 2005 Design Review Board meeting 8. Goal 1, Principle 2 of the Hillside Design Guidelines 9. Letter from Michael King, received January 19, 2006 10. Submitted plans February 1, 2006 page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT NO. .L,. ~ \ ~ " TOWN OF TmURON NOTICE OF APPEAL cc. ~ ~ coif ICY" 'J Pr~ APPELLANT Name: rV\ 1 C. 4--~'- Address: ~ Telephone: :r ~ \<' ~-r-fH y~ ~cLJ D{)~LJ & . ! Q BA \ I \< ' ~G- ark) 4. \) <:::\ 3~ 3'l.~~(Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: D ~ :5 I 6.,.,.) K €::..v \ ~...u 130 u. (}...() Date of Action: De..c-E..AA ~ tr'P ~~ Name of Applicant: -ry Lr;;,~ {7;..1. I J J A i>5' Nature of Application: \)1}(1.JA-t-lr;-,~ w,tl. fu:>{XI\OU -rO po Si~iL ~11 Ht)i\I\\ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, ifnecessary) ,(- fief> <J S 1\.) J;: ILl!! ~ d.t': J'TS fZt>O-- \J 6.fU D......'yZ; -1 Q<z. LorOI)~~ b ~ ~ iJ t..J V \ L\LA---it, n-~ () P-- ~ t1 tJ I ~6 v\S-r-~..c../1- ~'fWw\.'1ttJ,...s"l. ~ .- ~ O.h'l~~ \ to...lc.' ~ J plilt ~ to L~R. '1"0 llR 8.1.. Vf'D t1 [:-bY' r&' ....,,-ru M.~r\1iTl p;,.,.~ \__ P1-~Njet) PC2JES ['-,.,.J"r l. O,j ~I I Pac: o~ D fa.. eo pw:; Ov7'(~ ON\l~:' A1- , M ~ r;:'" , ro.,\ 6- ~tJ DA-Frr- 1'2- J t!r T\4'" .>-ff\ t:.....-r-4 - PUt L.L..-\ p;- L T 4t I '" b,J o5J )-1- ,1,...(..:'5 I D Ir 0 \2...<;. I'" oJ c:;...u I Ol'Z..u />..1\;5' ex> L'TtL .,-z:> 0 f1. 'l!. p "0 (:>;1;:0:0 ;)........, ~ $v~f>Q~ fl<..l I ~ ~ ~'IIY t>o.-:r.==-t". /"" t=,r..s ~""t- + "t-!.ol/ 101, / Fee Paid: ~3~~ Date of Hearing: l;2., (f\ 0 ~ i \\.J~c" (f' 6 ~.. 6~. ('k.de//;'6j feJo 'I Z<<J (p - Last Day to File: L ~ D~ D ~- Date Received: . January 2004 CD Michael J. King 6 Audrey Court Tiburon, 'California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. .i- fJ :1. ~ \9 ..27. November 2005 ,........ '10: Tiburon Design Review Board FRCN: Michael & Kathleen King, 6 Audrey Court, Tiburon SUBJ: Enlargement & Rem:xieling of 2 Audrey Court, Tiburon Lady & Gentlanen: This letter will reflect the study of related factors and plans revised since the 3 November 2005 meeting. ~'Ve are also resul:mi..tting our original three letters which we understand were presented to you out of context. You received (hopefully), the meno fonn letter ,10/27 /05 intended to be a cover letter, several days after the letters dated 6 February 2002 and 6 November 2001 which were intended to support the meno letter. SIZE. I am a Civil Engineer, BSCE Stanford and formerly the Assistant Chief Estimator and an Associate with Kaiser Engineers in charge of the estimating for all Kaiser medical facilities and the Sheraton word wide expansion program. I have also built nmnerous houses as a licensed contractor as well as 'bvo condaniniun projects here in Tiburon. Please accept that I have sate knowledge about estimating and oonstruction. The house proposed at 2 Audrey Court is enornous and massive and in stJ:ong i.na:msistency with zoning limitations. The planned lot coverage is 3,305sf vs. the allowable 2,782sf, a whopping 18.8% overage! It would be as high as 28.3% overage if the plans did not call for denolition of a carport to be replaced by unsightly outside parking. The Floor Area planned is 5,177sf (l,3l9sf added plus 264sf of carport converted) representing an unbelievable overage in square footage of 34. 2%! By contrast in April of this year (2005) we sul:mitted renodeling plans c~ling for 18% overage in lot coverage and 11.2% in Floor Area. We were denied and told, that it was "overbuilding". After rronths of push and pull we were finally approved at 6% overage for lot cover and 6. 3% over for Floor Area. ~Ve have been residents of Tiburon allrost 35 years and raised our children here who now live here. We certainly don't feel that Tyler Phillips as a speculator, who makes a habit of abusing the zoning ordinances (re 8 Audrey Court, 45 Spring Lane, 2 Atrlrey Court) should be granted anywhere near what be requests at. 2 Audrey Court in lot coverage oif FAR. This is a:a:uivalent to "giving away free land".' Similar houses in this area will sell for $1000 to $1200 per sf. The overages he requests should be worth $1. .million . or nore, yet Y1r. Phillips niggardly denies rem::>ving functionless height off his roof which is an eyesore in the views of several neighbors. EXHIBIT NO. i. f~ 3t ~ lCf The Floor Area may be even greater than shO\ID on the plans. The revised plans received by the City, a copy of which was graciously given to me by Kristin Krasnove are not corrplete. Missing is Sheet A3.5 which would show the level of the lower floor in relationship to the natural grade. Plans of the existing 2 Audrey Court house (by Roger Hartley), a copy of which we have furnished Kristin, clearly indicate high void areas under the lower floor which 1) clearly violate the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and 2) means that additional space under the lower floor should be included in the Floor Area (see BASENENT paragraph of Section 4.02.08, Tiburon Zoning Ordinance). Further, the functionless attic area which measures over 8' at its highest may also be capable of being used or fi.n.ished for habitable space, (see the same Section) adding even nore square footage (loft). FRONT PATIO. The large patios front and back together with retaining walls and heavy ballustrads obviously add to the bulk and massiveness of the planned house. Not to mention the fact that there is obviously significant grading in l:x:>th areas which is not adequately (information) shown on the plans. The front patio is our major concern, through which we should have a very lovely view of the Tiburon haroor, the San Francisco Yacht Club, and Belverere. Mr. Phillips assures us that our view will not be affected. But frankly he has no credibility with us and we therefore eanlestly'ask you to require him to give us elevations on the plans'lclear the area and install heighthpoles (with .colored termis balls at the top elevation) in significant positions such as the driveway, the patio level, the top of posts around the patio and entry court, the corners of the outdoor ~ wall, the estimated vehicle roof top ~t al. We would also like to see a grading plan and an estimate of ilnport fill or export. We believe at one time the ordinances prohibited noisy activities in the front yard. The proposed plan includes a BOO in a wall of some heighth, a spa probably well lighted, a large patio obviously for entertaining - all of which will take a great deal of privacy from us and particularly the Ollender-ff house below. Finally, we would like to have some recorldable coveriant that our view would not be taken away in the future by planting or any other installations. WIN[)(:~'l AREAS and PORCH above ENTRY. How would you like a porch 16'.x 10' about 25 yards away looking uphill into your Living Room, Dining Roan, Breakfast Roam and main deck? The anount of windows, even after a slight adjustment, is relatively nore than any other house that I have ever seen! This wi11 offensively light up the neighborhocx:1 glaringly, not to mention tremendous privacy intrusion. On the East elevation facing our property, the virtual wall of glass is directly exfX)sed to us by all windows to the right of the entrance. A substantial portion of this looks dire ctly into their library, and reciprocally into our aforementioned cerenonial rooms and deck. The am:>tmt of windows ~uld be a disaster to the neighborhood around the entire perimeter of the proposed plan. EXHIBIT NO. ~ tj Lf rA \9 MAIN ROOF PEAK. This situation truly offers the Board of Design Review an opportunity to do a very good service for the conmunity. There are at least six neighbors whose views are seriously impacted by a functionless void (approximately 8' 3") at the top of this house which never shoul9. have been built, canpounded with a very high foundation which seriously violates Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside IMellings. The opportunity is ideal for a tradeoff for at least a partial consideration of the tremendous overbuilding requested. The crown of the roof could be lowered 7' in height, still leaving an interior with a 9' ceiling. The exterior could be nodified to be a mansard style, consistent with what Mr. Phillips now requests raising the height of the garage roof, with a flat (cants / crickets to provide for drainage) tar and gravel roof. Ironically we believe that this would even look better for him and all of us, eliminate 7' of cobw'eb and heat trap waste, and nost importantly, significantly reduce the massiveness of his proposal -- and the quality of the house 'WOuld lose nothing 1. Tiles from the renoval could be reused elsavhere where matching the . existing (which is in certain areas proposed) will not be possible otherwise. Mr. Phillips has gone so far as to design sonething similar to this proposal (copy attached - roof can be lowered further), but has quoted one of the neighOOrs, Mark Casillas, a "stick up" ransom of $250,000.001 for this renoval (it can be done for l/lOth of that anount) while Mr. Phillips stands to gain $1 million or ITOre on "free landll by gross overbuilding as pointed out above in my SIZE section. A "heads I win, tails you lose" proposal. Please don't forget that Mr. Phillips is a speculator. The only other person to speak for Mr. Phillips (Bruce Portner) at our last meeting was Mr. Phillips' real estate agent 1 This house is already listed for sale! RAISING ,OF RCX)F OVER GARAGE wrnG,~ This roof raising nodified since 3 November 2005 in the rear only has resulted in an odd and unattractive slant shape. It still blocks some of our water view which Mr. Phillips said he would not do. Neighl::ors above are also affected. Please remember the City of Tiburon has already denied raising of ,this roof (see our letter of 6 November 2001). CHIMNEYS. The chimney on the south elevat~9n is already functional and does not need lenghtening from 2' to 6', adding to bulk and massiveness and serving no purpose. Ditto the chi.nney stack at the rear which would serve two (2) gas fireplaces which can be done with simple vents. This chi.nu1ey stack will also coree prominently into the view of the several neighbors if the crown of the roof is lowered as we seek. arHER. We believe that the stucco oolor proposed is too bright and request a reasonably sized sample. The enlarging of eaves again adds to the mass. Regarding the deck off the upper ~1aster Bedroom which Mr. Phillips stated he was lenghtening in only one direction, the EXHIBIT NO. .i- fj s ~ \ I plan proposed is to enlarge it fram 8' 9 x 7' 3 to II' X 9' 5. As requested for the front patio, we w:>uld like to see a pole and even a simulated l:ody which would come into our view and a recordable oovenant to protect no nore taking of our water view as Mr. Phillips has pranised.; We do not think this is possible, and therefore the . deck should not be expanded. When you visit us we will denonstrate this to you. We also oppose the deer fence and its inconsistancy in fom. It will obviously channel the considerable deer traffic onto our property, and why an ornamental fence on the west property line and a unattractive wire fence on our east property line? In surrmary we believe that the proposed plan is an enorrrous, massive, out of place hane built around an old frame which "should be denolished" (prominent local architect), all on an tmdersized lot. Granting of anything approaching it is ~letely .inconsistant with the zoning ordinances meant to protect neighl:x:.>ring properties - and this to a speculator \vith no support but his real estate broker. It should also be noted that all three of the neighl:x:>rs (and others such as Mark Casillas at 8 Bartel Court who would liked to have been there) plus Board Member, Frank Th.)yle, have all stated that the: 'notrl::cepe1t'iod for such a grandiose plan was too short. Now during a minimal continuance period fran 11/03/05 to 12/01/05 Mr. Phillips has gone off to his house in Florida from 11/07/05 until 11/29/05 (see his rnerro dated 11/09/05) leaving many questions and points such as grading plans, elevations, missing sheet A3. 5 and others indicated above unanswered and undiscussed. Weare not interested in dealing with. his architect, e-mail or long distance phone calls. We therefore hereby ask for I further continuance allowing a proper scrutiny warranted by the proposed plans and deserved by the affected neighb::>rs. The plans have been undexway since last August J.2005). Mr. Phillips has stated that some ti.1re ago he spoke with myself and my wife, Kathy,. Not true. He spoke only with Kathy and then misrepresented her before the Board claiming that she said the existing roof line is acceptable. Please do not allow this significant proposal be "hustled" through any further. - la b7 a t:... I alf-- ~ a 13-' a = b =!lII!!; l!JI =.; II ..- II ~BL s II 5J · I lllliiiiIiI..... iIlI l' I (I III i IIII I. .. T T I "Hi liieW ! ~ ~r IE ~: .. il III I ,. " " ~ IT .j!lI II T ~~ !'-. L. ... I ' -I- I:: ~~. I""'-- iiiiiiiii . II I T-. II It I 1-. c: Ir !;I V "" v I\. 7 IL ""\ '" "') - ( '\. 7 , If' -.;;: f,\ 7 1-'- ." - LA-- <J~I I -- 11 I I b a l I I , '\\\ It... EXHIBIT .NO .1- ~J ~ o~ \C[ II L .. .1 II I I I It 1 Q ,'f"'" 1- 4 " e,....J 'll.'f.~1 ...., .. It, i lL'lJ>> ~ ~ rt ~... .J. Q,... :J' ,-"I ~ ~...... t~:l ~.:L Ltl I I I . a ~ rfj l- j ~ t- ,.,.. D, e , L\1 \f'~ ~ \) a..: Q..... - f'\ J ~\ ".~ -1 \),0,... ~ J 2~ ~ () ~ ~ '-7 j, ~ 3 ~ <ff(j \), <i W C :10 ~bf ~ , s \---2 a:--- , C\l 7D ~...i' 1) ~ -~ ~ d.tl CJ\ !:~ - ~ ~~ ~~. ~ >- C1 D ~j, cl' ~ tL: G 6 <2::L ...:l~ ..J :~_ 1;,~',,, () _..~ 1 Qi .<~~1. ~-J I ft.' /,. <.\ ci ~ t t- O ~. bJ l'.',.: -iJ ""~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ...., _ J -> 4.:. 0: "> @) EXHIBIT NO. ~ ~J ? 6~'9 10 December 2005 In addition, the following was addressed to the Board of Design Review on I December 2005: If Mr. phillips \<<>uld graciously lower the roof on this house to the benefit of several neighOOrs, then and only then do I think it would be appropriate to discuss some of the variances he needs to overbuild his lot by the 34.2% he prop:>ses. Residents and neighl:x:>rs of this Tiburon community deserve the protection of well-established ordinances - and we are here to ask for it! Mr. phillips knows, as evidencErl by his own al temate drawings, that he can lower the roof without. losing any interiqr quality of the house. He stated to Kathy and me that the lowering of the roof would be worth a million dollars to us, but he wanted to be paid for it., He similarily told Mr. Casillas of 8 Baitel Cburt that he wanted $250,000.00 for the raroval. This is a pure "stick up", and consequently he does not deserve any consideration for the overbuilding of a house that is already maxed out. As it is, the overbuilding he requests 'WOuld be 'WOrth considerably nore than a million to him. As a civil engineer and general contractor, I seriously question whether. the inordinate anount of windows Mr. .Phillips prop::>ses would not in itself cause collaspe or reverting to darolition and reconstruction thereby losing the existing roof. Would he then be allowed to rebuild it? I seriously question whether Mr. Phillips knows the trem:mdous cost of meticulously lacing that wood frame with an abundance of steel to hold it together. In addition, the 2005 UBC update, specifically the energy section, has lilnited the window area of a residence to 20% of the exterior surface. We have also recently noticed that the existing chimney does not meet the cx::xie of 2' above any lateral roof less, than 10' away horizontally. ~ believe this will require the revised chimney, already increased three (3) times in size, to be raised significantly from what is shown on plans - again into the views of several others and a bulky eyesore. Our letter to you (Board of Design Review) dated 27 November 2005, raises a dozen or nore similar questions, including ab:>ut grading (will there be import fill, bUilding up the lot and elevations, retaining walls and the like?) We need time to get answers and the reasonable cooperation from Mr. Phillips, who has written to Patricia V<<:>eber of Bartel Court, "You are correct to imply that this is pro:babl.y the last tine that there is any chance for the existing roof to be lowered.. .however if those neighl:x:>rs who will benefit are IX>t willing to pay, it is not likely to happenll. Is this a man who we should Embrace and indulge with very heavy variances and who has made a habit in two (2) other houses of seeking serious variances? We earnestly ask your supp::>rt in this matter. Tell him "no" to his overwhelming FAR and lot coverage variance requests. Other I December 2005 Board of Design Review outcomes: 1) the only concession required by the Board on I December 2005 was the reduction of window area by 30% on the east elevation only! Please EXHIBIT NO._.1- fJ ~ ~ \1 look at the window area on the other elevations! The light and glare will affect all of the neighlx>rhood -- and it remains questionable whether the excessive windows are structurally possible without rebuilding and within the 2005 UBC building code revisions allowing no nore than 20% window coverage. Even the reduction on 'the east elevation was left to the discretion of the staff with no special considerations for the 16' x 10' 0rch with 2nd story French doors and panel looking uphill and only 25 yards away from the Kings ' Living, Dining and Breakfast rooms and primary 1O:iew deck. Several other ilnportant items were corrpletely ignored that evening e. g. regarding grading plans and elevation marks at critical points of the new front (particularly) and rear patios which appear to require ilnport fill (how much?) What will the heights be for the heavy ballustrade walls/posts sitting on new retaining walls? Ditto for the BOO wall and adj acent planters, the patio and parking levels, the projected tree growth of 8' -10' -- the Kings atove and the Ollendorffs below (as well as others) are interested in these heighth indications. The story pole requirements attached to the appeal application is not limited to structures alone. As for the structure, the expansion of the deck off the Master Bedroc:>m will definitely take away a view of the lagoon from the approved King rem:rlel -..;. a pole was also requested at that point. Where is the required plan for poles? Also missing and undiscussed (although we had requested it early in November) was the sheet A3. 5, a section cut through 'the lower area which clearly shows the house is not built in accordance with Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines potentially leaving m:>re room for development in the void area below (see attached sheet GlPl-l). The raising of the roof over the garage which has been denied by the City before, and takes away some of our water view, was rrodified after the 3 }:\bvember 2005 agenda into an awkward slanted roof -- never discussed at the 1 December 2005 meeting! The front room chimney enlargement which will probably need m:>re height than shown - never discussed at the 1 December 2005 meeting! The request by the Board itself on 3 November 2005 for a different stucco oolor -- never discussed (nor displayed) at the 1 December 2005 meeting! Different types of deer fencing .all around ,the ]2ropert.Y -- never discussed , at the 1 December 2005 meeting! 2) Enclosed please find the 1st page of a letter da,ted 1 November 2005 and written by Tyler Phillips. To us this reflects that Mr. Phillips has no regard or respect for the Tiburon ordinances. 2 Audrey Court is the third house he has asked for substantial multiple variances / increases. This is tantarrount to giving him free land and :rconey. A few days after the 1 December 2005 meeting, the 2 Audrey Court house which was already listed for sale at $4.6 million was raised to a listing price of $5.6 million "with approved plans". And yet when his neighl:x:>rs asked him to lower his roof 7' (3' is not enough) at no loss of quality to him, and EXHIBIT NO. .1- t~ 'l ~ \ Cf after bulking and puffing the house up unreasonably beyond ordinances, he lamely states it "is not in my project budget". Frankly, we believe that Mr. Phillips got far rrore from the Board of Design Review than he expected! The fact that this house was originally built many years ago does not entitle it to exceptional treatment -- nor in our opinion can it be made into an exceptional house. Please consider and help us to see 2 Audrey Court remain in keeping with the neighlx>rhood and not so offensive to several nieghlx>rs. EXHIBIT NO,. 1-~__. fJ \0 ~ Ie Tyler Pbillips 122 Red Hill Circle ifiburon, CA 94920 lATE MAll #E.: t.f Kristin Krasnove Associate Planner Town ofTiburon cc: James Dietz, Michael King November 1, 2005 RE: 2 Audrey Court This,memo is follow-up to your staff'report and to the "Late Mail" letter from Mike King. 1) Additional detail reeardine reouested Door soaee variance. Below are listed in descending order the floor space variances for homes in the immediate neighborhood (Audrey Ct, Acela, and Berke Ct). . Address Lot Size Allowable Actual/requested Percent Sq Ft. Sq. Ft Sq. Ft Variance 7 Audrey Ct 17550 3755 5361 42.8 % 1 Acela 25875 4587 6003 30.9 % 2 Audrey Ct 18548 3854 4904 27.2 % 1 Berke Ct 13625 3362 4043 20.3% 11 Acela 22500 4250 4798 17.9 % 6 Acela 17808 3780 4443 17.5 % 3 Berke Ct 18422 3842 4489 16.8 % 8 Audrey Ct 21000 4100 4562 11.3 % 6 Audrey Ct 16871 3687 3020 6.3 % Most of the homes in this immediate neighborhood were initially built in the 1960' s and as they have been remodeled, the trend has clearly been for larger homes. Note also that 2 Audrey is unique as one of the few Tiburon homes with a legal seCond unit. Second units, when done properly, are desirable for caretakers and in-laws. Nearly a third of the variance requested in this application is for expansion of the second unit. Without the second unit expansion, the variance would 18.8%. ~ 2. Dietz letter renrdin2 the location of the 0001 and drain8ft, eoaeems. I met this morning with Mr. Dietz and after a review ofhis concerns I have agreed to move the pool and the pool deck closer to the house and further away from the West property line, in effect, moving the pool completely within the setback. The drawings will be revised and provided to the Planning deparbnent by November 8th. rD) ~ IED~~~ ru NOV-'. ~ PLANNING DIVISION .TOWN OF TIBURON J!J.A.nlnl'1' 1'J U:. --a- " : , f:i " 0.(' '\9 II ~ ~-\J!& . '.: Cl :r..~ ~~~,'.. ' ~ .v~c: ~ -,sr.. ~ <~ >> ~~. f1! ~~.~ r- , 0- ~ t::~. ~ t). ....-.,' . . -\ > ..- -:'11(U t' \)~" : _.._~~_.. . ~ .~~~ ~ ~ - ~-~~ .. '~.~ :1:\:) ~ ~~,. .~ ~Fo :> ~ . ' ~ (\\ . . ,- '1 ;, "" C. /: '- - .' '.',...;t-rc. - :I.'~ 04 ~ & ... ~:-<~1.-:-:-; ~;~i 'l . \\. (j{',~I >- ~ ., ,~ I' {D c: I. -I :r:. t}- ~{ll v - .. . I r ~ t~ . < -\1 :;. .~~~ < /' V ~~~ :0' ~ (t1 4 I{}C _', ,/' -.=t.-1 ~I ~ ~ --~- \) , ~.)'- r < ~ /' ~ 2G..~~I~~~ ~^-"\ ftI...~~ _. ,C \J "- ... \,}-' ,'U.< . r ~ ~ - g ~-'~~ S; 7',~ nt ,-( ~ "rn. {l\ . ,v m (\t;' u- .:I. 11 ~, :r lP ll- (\\ )- m -:< f' m ,.... -n'M .\X -U -{ {II {\\ {) J.i w !:(llI~ t: r. ~'I"U. \11 ~ ~m~ r \ . ~ "~JI~~ S . rll ~ tp-- )- (} 0 \J :.r.. l~ ~ ~ \) r (D~ ~ \P !(I L ~ ~ I~ y\ll ~ . 1() a 'r~ i1-n m~ . ~\)-\PUt - n In c: """ ~((Ir-n Iii :J;]C ~ ,--"'1l <-=-\ ' ~<.- ~:L< . =>!l~ , I' . rn.%rn~al >C J!-xc, ,. ." 0-0 . ~... . p -......-.. ~ -.-18 ' ~C~. , rn. . '.TI,~ .' I:"'~ . Ic~ '/7'\- ,....~ ' ~-.,. r - ~- x. *-, _~. >.c ~:::: . - tD 111 >- clt f""'- Q ~o . i\'-U i Iftl:~ ' x'p'~ ~ ~ ~ -l. 01 ~ c::~.. ~ _~.o iP - 1])'" r~ I: '. WiIr. "' c:. (\l bo,. ~ c. -1-: f\) ~ o o~~ I~'''-- z.. ~~. & ~ /' . - ,2,.. ..' ""," I. J! iP -9 x. ' , ..; ...... v- ~ C. ;c.- iJ ...: :~., , < W-e:. 1\'i -:\ . " 0 N ... . t"l.. 'T {J j tJt ~ c: .. .! . m' - ....L 0 ~ca, · ~.._--~.:- .~,.'~~. .' _::-:.. ... ~ - t' -..'. ~ ;~ '.' " "().'-', - . Jr 'Ill .' >- ~ III.' _ "iI.., ; :.s:~ ' ,~,. ~ ~-' ".-" .-- -., 'ft' II; "C c- ' - - . 0 r-' D. C I...., _..._ o. .... :.. tt- 7':. --' ~ ,01,'. .Q-- \). . -,'"It' , :r. . .... ' lit.:.. ' -.-I o ~.II(. ... '. :,~' !:;. III ....... - \. ' ;; "'0" c .. "II .. .. .. ''''II ... -toO 5. CoO, . Z'Z ~ , a ' .; )It - -Ii I 0', ." Z~ '-I' 0-: . . < ii~ ~ . . : ~~~rn -n01c:.~ ~{lIr;-U- T.:r~t\\ >> -, .~ . -U~~ ~:I:.< t){tl ~ . > ::[511 . >0- ~~ ~~ ~~ {tl~ \t:c: --1 ~-\. I (tl~ O-U ~- .< I ;~ - 'z.' m r0- m < )It ::!i o z m m r0- O ~ m o -t -t o i: - ... '... . .0 ~.. ,.. G) :.'"% .;.: \>; // ,.~ ~ ~ \" - -0 ~ ~ ~ Q) Michael J. King 6 Audrey Court Tiburon, California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. .1.- f~ \).. ~ l( 27 October 2005 - ..--......--- -- TO: Tiburon Design Review Board FROM: Michael & Kathleen King, 6 Audrey Court, Tiburon SUBJ: Enlargement & Remodeling of 2 Audrey Court, Tiburon Lady & Gentlemen: We strongly object to both the very inordinate size and much of the general design of the subject property, particularly those aspects which take away more of our view. Attached please find letters written~us on 6 November 2001 and 6 February 6 2002 which offer valuable history on 2 Audrey Court. Among other activities we - caused a composite plan of the existing house to be drawn in early 2002 -- the house had undergone major remodeling four times before -- and we have delivered a copy of that plan to planner Kristin Krasnove. Size. The proposed plan for 2 Audrey Court is a gross overbuilding. The plan drawn in 2002 shows (and we have detailed computations) that the existing house at that time had 16.7% coverage vs. the 15% allowable. Now they are proposing approximately a 400 square feet enlargement of the lower level raising the excess coverage to over 25%. Although your courtesy notice states that Mr. Phillips is asking for 16.6%, we believe it is already at more than this to + 18.9% or over 25% in excess of the 15% allowable. Square footage has been increased + 400 square feet on the lower level and + 250 square feet on the main level, not to mention an increased deck size on the upper level. The existing FAR by our calculation is 4,065 sf vs. the allowable 3,285 sf. The new total would bring the FAR overage to approximately 24% in excess of' the allowable! In addition large patios are planned for both the front and rear with unsightly outdoor parking in our full view. Other objections include: 1. Front Patio. This is a very critical area through which we once had a beautiful view of the Tiburon harbor, EXHIBIT NO. ~ fj '3. ~ \4 San Francisco Yacht Club et al (we will supply pictures) · It used to be against ordinances to build such noisy facilities in a front yard. Proposed is an elevated patio (see stairs) with a BBQ backed by a wall and planters (no poles however provided) as well as outdoor parking. The plans also show magnolia trees which can get very large tall and thick. We are greatly concerned about any vegetation in this area as well as the patio (see our pictures). We feel that this area should have nothing but very low planting -- this is what we originally had and according to Tiburon landscaping ordinances are entitled to now. Otherwise there ia virtually no front yard setback. 2. Window Area. The proposed window area is overwhelming, particularly for us on the east elevation facing our house = leaving little privacy and an enormous amount of offensive glaring light. The two side by side decks are also a little much. It appears even worse for neighbors below on the west side. 3. Main Roof Peak. The top roof peak is a void of 6' to 8' which serves no good purpose and never should have been built (it was not on the original plans). It has had an obvious negative affect on our home, taking away much view of Sausalito and the mountain ridge behind, not to mention a general denial of space with light and air. It really serves no purpose and we ask that you consider it being removed. This would help to compensate that the house was not built into the sloping bank below as now required by the current Tiburon standards (beware of future applications by Mr. Phillips to also develop these void areas). In our interpretation the existing height of the house is already above the allowable height limits. A Tiburon architect friend of ours recommended to the former owners in 2002 that this house should come down now it is being lavishly embelished! 4. Roof over Garage Wing. The City of Tiburon has already denied raising of this roof (see our letter of 6 November 2001). Again it serves no purpose but foo foo and takes away water view from us. Neighbors from the Court above have previously successfully objected to this (among them Jerry Thayer, ex mayor) . 5. Enlarging Chimney, adding another. All are oversize(d) infringing on view and open space are are largely for show. EXHIBIT NO. .1- fj \Ii ~'1 The new chimney in the rear does not appear to be adequately shown on the plans. 6. Additions of Roof Eaves. Same objections particularly on the east elevation. 7. Enlarging of Deck on Upper Level. Same objections. No pole indications. The proposed house is way out of proportion and character for our neighborhood. With this in mind, we would be happy to work with Mr. Phillips. We have called him, but because he lives elsewhere have not been able to reach or talk specifics with him. Thank you for your consideration. Michael]. King 6 Audrey Court Tiburon, California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. 1- ~J I'S' C1~ '<1 ~February 2QQ,6 Mr. Roger Hartley 1550 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: 2 Audrey Court Residence Dear Mr. Hartley: Persuant to you supplying us with "as-built" drawings and other information, we have studied the same and offer the following observations: 1. Coverage. Hartley 3,068sf (16.6% vs. 15% allowable) Ours 3,087sf (16.7% va. 15% allowable) Areas not included but questionable relate to the fireplace, ~of the deck over tile carport, and ~ of the deck in the area to the left or behind the carport deck. 2. FAR. Bartley 3,258sf Ours 4,065sf Areas questionable but not included again relate to the fireplace, the open upper living room area, and the area ,under the deck to the left of the carport. . 3. Setbacks. There is a slight viol~tionof . setback in the SW corner. ' 4. }'1~.;mwn'Height. We measure 'the maximum height at ,30' 3", slightly over the allowable 30 r . In summary we believe that the 2 Audrey Court house is _already "maxed" out plus. In addition, considering Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings, please note the following with respect ~l f>, ~, - ~",_r...:.: A'~' ,/~ ".r? \!",. ~. ~ ~ 6 t;:~, ~1; "+g~: ~ ;;; T ?,/~".},~,:, t,,,,,f7 1 '.'{ r'jl"',Jt /-?fC;.fl' . ~...~.!..." -..) .,.~ - 1 t ' i~ 'y ~:;J j.~., f'".t.c: ~ r, t,) lJ(Ll~'" vy')-ri"; ,r) f?L l f..-lCr- UJ-fE,/2.,:e .... P'~"i:'J5 ~~ ,~,(;J. i:;>" ,. 'I ",~ \ '" " { ,. g: \l '", .;" ....' , \ M A-N I> 0 Ne:.o /.Vr TA-~-r liME- ( C \ ~U:h r'E6 b 1-} \ to the 2 Audrey Court house: EXHIBIT NO. .1.- t.) I~ .~ (~ 1. There is no excavation into the hillside to reduce height and preserve neighboring viewshed (see PG-l). 2. There is substantial unused dead space under the structure (see PG-IO). 3. There is no landscaping plan or grading for same and several 10' to 20' trees and shrubs have taken significant viewshed from our property (see PG-20). 4. A functionless dormer S'3" in height has also seriously deprived our and other neighbors' viewshed (see PG-l). In order to insure the veracity of your undertaking and our estimating with respect to governing allowances and, conformances, we will hire an architect to represent us in this respect and we feel that it is necessary that he be present in the propsed reciprocal visit. From what we have cited in the above numbers it does appear that expansion of the 2 Audrey Court house is not a possibility and your client should logically convert their rental unit (the legality of which we consider still an issue) to accommodate space for their family and in keeping with our neighborhood which ',does not include any other rental units of which we are aware. We are determined not to lose any more of the rightful view than that which has already been taken, but perhaps we could discuss exchanges that would eliminate the void dormer and relandscape (including regrading) the front of the 2 Audrey Court house in exchange for developing additional structure which is essentially out of sight/down the hill. We will continue to arrange a time with an architect representing us, but perhaps considering the above we should discuss our observations with you at this time (we will provide you with a detailed takeoff of the FAR). Thank you for your patience in this matter. Very truly your~, Michael J. King Kathleen B. King Michael J. King 6 Audrey Court Tiburon, California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. J- f,j '? * 19 6 November 2001 ~ ~-- .' - Mr. Roger Hartley 1550 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, C'A 94920 RE: 2 Audrey COurt Dear Mr. Hartley: We have done considerable research on several of the questions we asked you in our letter of Octol:er 16, 2001. We continue to offer our cooperation with you. However: 1. There is no graphic record (as-built drawings) existing of what is currently there. Since the house was l:W.lt in 1970 there have been four rem:x1elings, two of them major. a) Circa 1973, there was a major rer.odeling including addition of the substantial wing which IlCM serves partly as a garage. '!his addition was contested ~ several neighJ::ors, including former mayor, Jerry Thayer, aId one of the CCIlpranises was for a flat roof now in place. Although the original CC&Rs for the Marinero Hate Owner's Association (in effect at that ti.Iie) call for carposite plans to be sul:mitted for approval, there are ro plans of any ki.rrl on record with the City reflecting this addition. b) Circa 1979, there was an addition of a deck off the Master Bedroom. Again there is no record of any plans for this addition with the City. c) Circa 1984, a seoord unit (now a rental. unit) was added urder the qualification that the ~widc:M Dunder would occupy, renewi.r:g this granting annually. She did for two years, and. the tmit was rented for several years thereafter without requirec!: .pennissioni.~~.2Tbe ?plaN; ':..wi th the City are IlDSt sketchy, without archi teet's signature or dates, and were not incorporated in a cooposite plan. A 6i te plan on record of that date also shows that the lot coverage at that ti..ne exceeded the allowable by a small anount. EXHIBIT NO. ..1- fj \~ o~ \'1 d) In 1993, a front deck was added, again based on sketchy plans which were not incorporated into a CCIl'[JOsite plan. 50% of deck coverage adds to the already exceeded coverage. There is no. carplete as-b:1i1t plan for what exists at 2 Audrey Court. It seems entirely reasonable to us that you present, a current and updated plan of 2 Audrey Court before considerin:J chaI:ges. 2. When we purchased our lot in the 1960' s, we received a letter fran the developers, Marinaro Residence No.1, Inc., signed by the President Henrich Guhl stati.D3 that the height of the house to' be b.1ilt at 2 Audrey Court w:>Uld be limited to a height approximately 2' below the current garage roof level. '!he original house was built approximately 10' higher taking ;gay al.m:>$t entirely a Belvedere LagoOn view which we were promised. Fran original plans at the City, it appears the top 8' of the gable type roof peak. which was l::uil t is void framing space which does not cdd to the living space or function of the 2 Audrey house. Act11a1ly it vi.rbla11y presents a solid blank wall which is very close to us and takes away views fran our living, di.ni.D:J and breakfast rooms. If you beccIre familiar with the overall plan of 2 Audrey, perhaps we could discuss its renoval. similarly" an earth nound at the front of 2 Audrey which DaN has substantial trees and bushes substantially took away our view of the TiJ:nron Harl:x>r. Since we noved here there have been several violations of the original CC&Rs by 2 Audrey. Although the City may not be responsible for enforcinJ these CC&Rs, we feel that both the City and neighl:ors have respect for these standards which were pranised. Other neighlx>rs have l:een affected. In addition to the controversy aver the ,1973 reuode1ing and creation of a ,rental unit which adversely affects neighl:x)r' s property values, in 1994 in a petition supported by eight neighl:or's, 2 Audrey COurt was overbJr1'led at eouncil level for a roof which was not in keeping with the neighborhood. '!bese sarre neighbors will doubtless have interest in what you may be al::out to do. . . . 3. Finally, with respect to questions we asked you in our letter of october 168 2001, evidence iDiicates that the structure at 2 Audrey already exceeds allCMable height, allCMable lot coverage, allowable area for garagi.n;J (600 sf maxi.mum) and nost likely FAR. There is also sate legal question whether or not a rental unit wro~y created can re ultimately perpetuated. The rental area ~ the way \<<>u1d be a logical area for expansion of the resid~ce. Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT NO. ..1- ~j \9 of 14 We are still willing to cooperate with you, but we believe that "as-built" plans shc::Ming what there is at 2 Audrey should reasonably precede going forward with you. 2 Audrey is a very nice lot. As requested before, we would also like a sinultaneOUS reciprocal visit of 2 Audrey with you and an inspection of the property as well as copies of all pictures you may take. '!he process may also warrant carputer IIDdeling if views are affected. very truly yours, Mif]1~ ~r3.~1 Kathleen B. Kin:1 page 3 of 3 TOWN OF TJ~URON LAND DEVELop~r . APPLICATION TYPE OF APPLICATION 0 Conditional Use Permit ~ Design Review (ORB) 0 Tentative Subdivision Map 0 Precise Development Plan o Design Review (Staff level) 0 Final Subdivision Map 0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variilnce 0 Parcel Map 0 Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 Lot Line Adjustment 0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION 2 ~ LLd ~~ ~(~t PROPERTY SIZE: I ~I Sq.g ~. F1: D _8 ... __I.. . _ -/0 ZONING: 7'/c6(f. I 'Z- '2. rt..c.p h ( (.. c... c.. f IZcc.. e=- ft Bc,.,(2..ovv J CA- ~ 9~1~u t7rr- i./::A.?r-J'a7.-r FAX Lrrf"-~? r -(07 J OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: P /71 U..-C.. (l $"' APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) SAn,... (2 A-s "v-rv~ MAILING ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX e" . !+ morn r i + 1h" I n L. _ · A RCHITECT/ ESIGNE ENGINEER: ~ ~ H..t,kJe~W\rbn9rit MAIUNGA S: ~~ ~~~~~I~ ~~. CITY/STATE/ZIP: _D,. ~ ~ ~ . q 4- PHONENUMBER:~____ G _L FAX Please indicate with all asterisk (*) persolls to whom correspondence should be sent. . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): Rbul>pEt:.. /1Ni? ~~e. it--f77n IN SIhM~ A;or Pi!-IwT IM/:J::> IIwITh ~E (i,OOF _ 5'~ CI"'-'t:= - I\I{: U-J fc.rrc hF-v fJ'Wf) B-~ S 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 Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that Lhe requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result from the third party challenge. Dale: f-U -0 r- Signature: (J f oth must have letter from owner) P9.N,P't WRIi.E'BE,~OW;'ttl"~!l;JN.,g ." '~""':;DEPARTMENT Ol. . OS;. '. . ." .". ....... ...".. ',.. '... .. . '..,.'........,.'..'.'. . .... .. .. ........ .. . - . ...... ... ........ . . ........,.. Application NO!~:~~:gi.if'pt",' .'::@'j"';,;;,,'J:"'; Date Recei\led:,~~~' Date Deemed Complete:' Acting Body: EXHIBIT NO. ~ tj \ ()~ ~ r<E-UI~t;;o ~ "rN EXHIBITNO~ ;-~5 ~ ~N: ~ ,U 2:~~.1:~;\ DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): 1. Briefly describe the proposed project: S GtS 6LL (r-11-fIrt- At' ft(CJIr1l~ 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 1.05.12*): I g SV<6 Zoning: 3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing S ( A./ CrLe t=~, '-'r (L€-S I PIS;-C.,p. Proposed ' S"~ e 4. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, tumar. ound or maneuvering. areas. "TtJ.-O P~t.=tfVfr S'~6> PrP'/).PQ- Tl/-JO E~'Sl1t\1c.r ~ e s/ ;;c.,~S' ~ e:.~,tV , . .... .....ITEM ..'..::ii.i,iil'I~~ii[l~i~ill~i!i. ~ij'~~lil~"ltf~'lll~,~lili~'~ ,'.!!il~~I,i!i .:!!ii~~iii~,~... Yards (Setbacks from property line)(Section 1.05.25)* f t' Front 'f 3 ' " " ft. t:Fl - - ..... -0 - ft. ft. '{; ft. 30 ft. Rear ' 'I ~I ,- ft. t,;;- ft. ~S- ft. b 2. "L ft. --0 ft. Right Side f S' 1 h ft. II c:;;if.- I' ,... ft. r~ ft. J~ ft. rS-- - tl ft. r tt ~ ,... 1< Left Side 1'(' ft. _c ft. ft. 15 '7 II ft. ft. Maximum Height , It ,,- ft. 30 (Section 5.06.07)* 7,<; ...6 ft. No en AtvVE- ft. ft. ;"~tI ~ ft. Lot Coverage 2-l..Cf-S if3t 3OB'sq.ft. (Section 5.06.08)* sq.ft. .,,~2. sq.ft )} or).-sq.ft. )., ? r:t!tq.ft. Lot Coverage as ,Cf fL.' Ib.~ J~ Percent of Lot Area % ~ % % 0/0 % Gross Floor Area ~(. ~~ V1tO If- 8"t ') ~ y-1.3sq.ft. 318ffsq.ft. (Section 1.05.06)* sq.ft. (( -z-1 sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLlCATION FORM 4/99 TOWN OF TIBT.JRON \0) [~ (C:[€ ~. ~.NI ~l.\~ . llrli NnV i ! 7D05i Town of Tiburon · 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920 · P. 415.435.7373 E 415 435. 38. WW\lY:t;ihuron~Gffl::'~ P.i: ' ,_:'~,i::~l: .~a~."_--'" -.--"'" -- - T~. I'ru()~-r ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (415)-435-7390 www.tiburon.ora 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 4.03 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Section 16-4.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) for additional information regarding Variances. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON Rev. 05/02 Page 1 Two Audrey Court Tiburon, CA EXHIBIT NO. ?-... ~L( 6f? ~ ~ ~ ((; ~ ~ W ~; .rr..r~,\ : II .,9. it/ ~~>~ Residential Remodel Project Description: This is a substantial remodel of an existing structure with the goais of upgrading the materials, expanding the space, and taking better advantage of the view opportunities. The basic footprint of the existing home and the roof line will remain the same. The Southwest comer of the existing structure which is currently made up of a deck, a second one-car garage, and a carport will be demolished. The main portion of the home and the West side wing will be expanded into t?e demolished area to provide enlarged bedroom and bath room spaces. The existing apartment will be retained with upgraded appliances and fInishes. Two non-driveway parking spaces are provided to replace the demolished garage . and carport spaces. Many interior walls will be changed and all appliances will be replaced. Several gas fireplace units will be added as well as one small wood buming cooking f1T~place in the remodeled kitchen. The existing roof will be retained. The remodeled house will feature all new windows and doors and a stucco exterior. The Proposed landscaping plan includes an outdoor spa and an in- ground lap pool as well as raised garden beds in a formal layout. A deer fence will be added to the perimeter of the property and a decorative Iron fence and gate will be added on the street side. September 15, 2005 Memorandum EXHIBIT NO. 2- ~~*S- ~~N~ ~ I~ :5~!~1 To: Kristin Krasnove - Planning Department, Town of Tiburon From: Tyler Phillips - Owner RE: 2 Audrey Court - Design changes requested by the neighbors Date: November 11, 2005 PLAN[\)I;JG [WW" T~S\,:.C' ~,I The following changes which were discussed at the November 3d have been incorporated into the revised plans and noted with clouding: 1) Documentation of the relocation of the pool and pool deck away from the property line. The TOW for the tall curved wall on the uphill side has been changed to show a 6' tall walLie, TOW 517 feet. The wall on the downhill side and the side away from the house is only 36" tall and the TOW of 514 feet has been included to re-emphasize that it is not a tall wall. There are no retaining walls on the West side of the relocated pool. The pool safety and childproof gates are also noted. 2) Documentation of the elimination of the landscaping between the driveway and the fountain and replacing it with a lawn and Lavender starflower privacy screen along the iron fence. The new planting have a mature height of 8-10 feet. 3) Documentation of the detail describing, the deer fence around most of the property and the iron ornamental fence adjacent to 10 Acela - A description of the Lavender Start10wer plant material and possible privacy trellis 4) Documentation of a redesign reducing the number of windows on the East second floor facade by 30 percent. This reduction is effected by eliminating small "Juliet" balcony on the East side of the house and converting that French door to a normal window as exists today. There is also a further reduction in the number of windows on the East side second floor created by changing the French door and double sidelight that opens onto the Balcony on the East side to a French door with one side lite. 5) Replacing the Wood burnfug fireplace in the kitchen with a gas fireplace so that so that the chimney can remain at its current height. 6) Documentation of a significant redesign of the Family room and Middle floor bedroom so that the wall to the North side of the house is diagonal and not intruding on the current "sight line" from 6 Bartel Court. With this redesign there is also an overall floor. space reduction of about 50 sq. ft. 7) Redesign of the garage roof so that the North Edge is at the current height. 8) Adoption of a different, duller, stucco color 10) Addition of detail for the fountain to demonstrate that it is the quiet type. Revised story poles are in place. ~ ~ ~ l i ~ ~ h h h it Ii j ~~ U (' t . g II ~i JJ ~~ t ~~ ~ I ~ ~ \II ~ ~ ~ ~ tii ~ tii ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ :J .. ~ p > ~ 9- N !: II~ ~ ~~ it ~'i II, II, f, II, l ~, , .IBITNO. ~ ! ~j \ ~ \ . I- I [ I , ~ _ 1K~ ~ - ~]~. - r I . ~ J! ~ .) =~== ~ ""-r::: ~ _III. :::..-~ " -~- / -'\ II ~ ts TIT ~ ~ TTI t I~ ~ 5 I I I g II I . III ~ ~ -. 11 TTI iI " . . I ~ -. . III I ~ I' t.. . ~ G II ~ ~ 'I · ; ~ e ~ I .. I ~ .. !l:l!!I! .. .....('" Or :2:~ r ~ . ci 22 02 -n G-; I Ii ':=1 CJ [ ['D~ l~< -;J:J(f) ~ II ICJ~ I~Q 1- ,,;~ J~ . ct ..::t ~ iii fl ICJ~ J ~~ ~- ~~ " ;1 ~ B~ III i~ ~ ~~ ; ~ . ~ IS ~ ~ ~ m ~ 0 I m (...D = 8 ~ (,,)I , m ..~=(-;~ II~ ~ ~~ it ~li l il~ ilp ~~ EXHIBIT NO.~ ~j \ o~ \0 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 01 ........ ............... TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: KRISTIN KRASNOVE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: 2 AUDREY COURT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE AND A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION. (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2005). MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2005 ............... ............. ... ............ BACKGROUND: On November 3, 2005, the Design Review Board reviewed an application for the addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The property slopes from east to west and has views towards Richardson Bay to the west. The property is currently improved with a 3,684 square foot single-family dwelling. The project that the Board reviewed on November 3, 2005 included significant landscaping, site plan, and structural improvements. The west side of the residence was proposed to be expanded rnto'the demolished area to provide for an enlarged bedroom and bathroom. The proposed additions would have increased the lot coverage by 439 square feet to 3,082 square feet (16.60/0), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district; therefore a variance for excess lot coverage was requested (16.60/0 in lieu of the allowed 150/0). The proposed addition would have also increased the floor area of the house by 1,220 square feet, and would result in a total floor area of 4,903 square feet, which exceeds the allowed floor area for a lot of this size; therefore a floor area exception was also requested At the November 3, 2005 Board meeting, the Board reviewed the project and considered public testimony. There were several concerns voiced by neighboring property owners and the Board regarding the location of the pool and pool deck, type of landscaping and fencing, potential light pollution form increased windows, chimney height, view impacts from Bartel court, and the stucco color. The project was continued to the December 1,2005 meeting to allow the applicant to address these i'ssues. ANALYSIS: Design Issues The applicant has revised the project in an attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Board. The lot coverage amount has not changed; however, the floor area has been reduced by 90 square feet. The proposed design also relocates the pool and pool deck within the side and rear yard setbacks. The pool deck would be located 15 feet from the west property AGENDA ITEM 01 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT NO..-:L- ~ \ ~ \0 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: KRISTIN KRASNOVE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: 2 AUDREY COURT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE AND A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION. (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2005). MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2005 BACKGROUND: On November 3, 2005, the Design Review Board reviewed an application for the addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The property slopes from east to west and has views towards Richardson Bay to the west. The property is currently improved with a 3,684 square foot single-family dwelling. The project that the Board reviewed on November 3,2005 included significant landscaping, site plan, and structural improvements. The west side of the residence was proposed to be expanded into the demolished area to provide for an enlarged bedroom and bathroom. The proposed additions would have increased the lot coverage by 439 square feet to 3,082 square feet (16.60/0), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district; therefore a variance for excess lot coverage was requested (16.60/0 in lieu of the allowed 150/0). The proposed addition would have also increased the floor area of the house by 1,220 square feet, and would result in 'a total floor area of 4,903 square feet, which exceeds the allowed floor area for a lot of this size; therefore a floor area exception was also requested At the November 3, 2005 Board meeting, the Board reviewed the 'project and considered public testimony. There were several concerns voiced by neighboring property owners and the Board regarding the location of the pool and pool deck, type of landscaping and fencing, potential light pollution form increased windows, chimney height, view impacts from Bartel court, and the stucco color. The project was continued to the December 1 , 2005 meeting to allow the applicant to address these issues. ANAL YSIS: Design Issues The applicant has revised the project in an attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Board. The lot coverage amount has not changed; ~ however, the floor area has been reduced by 90 square feet. The proposed design also relocates the pool and pool deck within , the side and rear yard setbacks. The pool deck would be located 15 feet from the west property Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT NO. 'i yJj ~ 6~ \0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .oO line, and the pool would actually be located approximately 26 feet from the west property line. The subsequent retaining walls would range from two feet to six feet in height. A wood and wire deer fence with a maximum height of five feet would be installed on the north, east, and a portion of the west property lines. An iron ornamental fence with a maximum height of five feet would be installed along Audrey Court and along the boundary with 8 Acela Drive. The change in the floor plan includes a reconfiguration of the family room and main level bedroom so that the wall on the north side of the house is diagonal and improves the site line from the uphill properties on Bartel Court. There has also been a reduction in the amount of windows on the second level of the east elevation. This was achieved by eliminating the decorative balcony and removing one of the side lites adjacent to the French door. The chimney height was also reduced from the previous plans by converting the wood burning fireplace in the kitchen to a gas fireplace so that the chimney can remain at its current height. The garage roof was altered so that the north edge remains at its current height. The proposed front yard landscaping was also replaced with a lawn and lavender starflower privacy screen along the proposed iron fence. This revised planting would have a mature height of 8-10 feet. The stucco color has also been revised to be a more muted sand tone. This redesign predominantly addresses the issues raised by the Board. As the previous plans indicated, the proposed lot coverage would still exceed the allowed lot coverage amount by 300 square feet, and although the gross floor area has been reduced, the project would exceed th~ allowable square footage for this property by 958 square feet. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zoning district with the exception of the previously noted variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. As noted on the previous report for this application, Staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance and floor area exception. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07, and 4.03.05(Guiding Principles and Variance Findings) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental O,uality Act (CEOA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board agrees with the conclusions of Staff, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval. EXHIBITS: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Revised application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 3, 2005 December 1, 2005 page 2 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT NO. L.f fj 3~ t(> . ......... ... ........... ......... ... ............ ... 4. Minutes from the November 3, 2005 Board meeting 5. Revised plans for the project December 1 , 2005 page 3 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT ..... ..... ... ........... ... .................. ...... CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL December 1, 2005 page 4 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT 2 AUDREY COURT FILE #20540 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 November 11, 2005, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of November 11, 2005, 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. 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 must be shielded, down light type fixtures. 6. 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. 7. The vehicle entry gate shall be located at least sixteen feet from the roadway. December 1, 2005 page 5 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT NO. '1 ~ y ~ \Q CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2 AUDREY COURT FILE #20540 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 November 11, 2005, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of November 11, 2005, 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. 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 must be shielded, down light type fixtures. 6. 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 costs7 claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 7. The vehicle entry gate shall be located at least sixteen feet from the roadway. December 1, 2005 page 4 of 4 LATE ~:.A1l # JJ- . . Michael J. JiiHIBIT NO. 6 Audrey Court fJ ~ 0 Tiburon, California 94920 TO: Tiburon Design Review Board FROM: Michael & Kathleen King, 6 Audrey Court, Tiburon SUBJ: Enlargement & Remodeling of 2 Audrey Court, Tiburon Lady & Gentlemen: We strongly object to both the very inordinate size and much of the general design of the subject property, particularly those aspects which take ,away more of our view. Attached please find letters written by'us on 6 November 2001 and 6 February 6 2002 which offer valuable history on 2 Audrey Court. Among other activities we caused a composite plan of the existing house to be drawn in early 2002 -- the house had undergone major remodeling" four times before -- and we have delivered a copy of that plan to planner Kristin Krasnove. Size. The proposed plan for 2 Audrey Court is a gross overbuilding. The plan drawn in 2002 shows (and we have detailed computations) that the existing house at that time had 16.7% coverage vs. the 15% allowable. NoW' they are proposing approximately a 400 square feet enlargement of the lower level raising the excess coverage to over 25%. Although your courtesy notice states that Mr. Phillips is asking for 16.6%, we believe it is already at more than this to + 18.9% or over 25% in excess of the 15% allowable. Square footage has been increased + 400 square feet on the lower level and + 250 square feet on ,the main level, not to mention an increased deck size on the upper'level. The existing FAR by our calculation is '4,065 sf vs. the allowable 3,285 sf. The new total would b~ing the FAR overage to approximately 24% in excess of the allowable! In addition large patios are planned for both the front and rear with unsightly outdoor parking in our full view. Other objections include: 1. Front Patio. This is a very critical area through which we once had a beautiful view of the Tiburon harbor, '" ~ EXHIBITNO. 4 ~ b.~ \0 San Francisco Yacht Club et al (we will supply pictures). It used to be against ordinances to build such noisy facilities in a front yard. Proposed is an elevated patio (see stairs) with a BBQ backed by a wall and planters (no poles however provided) as well as outdoor parking. The plans also show magnolia trees which can get very large -- tall and thick. We are greatly co~cerned about any vegetation in this area as well as the patio (see our pictures). We feel that this area should have nothing but very low planting -- this is what we originally had and according to Tiburon landscaping ordinances are entitled to now. Otherwise there ia virtually no front yard setback. 2. Window Area. The proposed window area is overwhelming, particularly for us on the east elevation facing our house -- leaving little privacy and an enormous amount of offensive glaring light. The two side by side decks are also a little much. It appears even worse for neighbors below on the west side. If you were to go to the rear of the police station and look up ~, you would see that the existing house even now is an overpowering eyesore. 3. Main Roof Peak. The top roof peak is a void of 6' to 8' which serves no good purpose and never should have been built (it was not on the original plans). It has had an obvious negative affect on our home, taking away much view of Sausalito and the mountain ridge behind, not to mention a general denial of space with light and air. It really serves no purpose and we ask that you consider it being removed. This would help to compensate that the house was not built into the sloping bank below as now required ,by the current Tiburon standards (beware of future applications by Mr. Phillips to also develop these void areas). In our interpretation the existing height of the house is already above the allowable height limits. A Tiburon,architect friend of ours recommended to the former oWners in 2002 that this house should come down now it is being lavishly embelished! 4. Roof over Garage Wing. The City of Tiburon has already denied raising of this roof (see'our letter of 6 November 2001). Again it serves no purpose but foo fooand takes away water view from us. Neighbors from the Court above have previously successfully objected to this (among them Jerry Thayer, ex mayor) . 5. Enlarging Chimney, adding another. All are oversize (d) infringing on view and open space are are largely for show. EXHIBIT NO. '-I fj ? ~ to The new chimney in the rear does not appear to be adequately shown on the plans. 6. Additions of Roof Eaves. Same objections particularly on the east elevation. 7. Enlarging, of Deck on Upper Level. Same objections. No pole indications. The proposed house is way out of proportion and character for our neighborhood. With this in mind, we would be happy to work with Mr. Phillips. We have called him, but because he lives elsewhere hav~ not been able to reach or talk specifics with h~. Thank you for your consideration. lATE MAll IE. ~ EXHIBIT NO. 'f Tyler Phillips tj <c ~ \0 122 Red Hill Circle Tiburon, CA 94920 Kristin Krasnove Associate Planner Town ofTiburon cc: James Dietz, Michael King November 1,2005 RE: 2 Audrey Court This memo is follow-up to your staff report and to the "Late Mail" letter from Mike King. 1) Additional detail renrdine requested Door space variance. Below are listed in descending order the floor space variances for homes in the immediate neighborhood (Audrey Ct, Acela, and Berke Ct). Address Lot Size Allowable Actual/requested Percent SqFt Sq. Ft Sq. Ft Variance 7 Audrey Ct 17550 3755 5361 42.8 % 1 Acela 25875 4587 6003 30.9 % 2 Audrey Ct 18548 3854 ' 4904 27.2 % 1 Berke Ct 13625 3362 4043 20.3% 11 Acela 22500 4250 4798 17.9 % 6 Acela 17808 3780 4443 17.5 % 3 Berke Ct 18422 3842 4489 16.8 % 8 Audrey Ct 21000 4100 4562 11.3 % 6 Audrey Ct 16871 3687 3020 6.3 % Most of the homes in this immediate neighborhood were initially built in the 1960" s and as they have been remodeled, the trend has clearly been for larger homes. Note also that 2 Audrey is unique as one of the few Tiburon homes with a legal seeond unit. Second units, when done properly, are desirable for caretakers and in-laws. Nearly a third of the variance requested in this application is for expansion of the second unit. Without the second unit expansion, the variance would 18.8%. 2. Dietz letter renrdinp' the location of the 0001 and drainue CODeerDS. I met this moming with Mr. Dietz and after a review of his concerns I have agreed to move the pool and the pool deck closer to the house and further away from the West property line, in effect, moving the pool completely within the setback. The drawings will be revised and provided to the Planning deparbnent by November 8th. ' [5)E<CE~\'#E~ ~ NOV-I. .~ PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO ~ ,lj In this location there are no retaining walls required on the West side of the pool deck. fj 9 ~ '0 The wall noted on the plan is a 30" decorative wall and we will plant thick hedge material behind the wall on the slope to provide additional privacy for the Dietz home and others on Acela. The Dietz's concerns regarding drainage have been noted. Some of the drainage issue will be resolved by the removal of a substantial portion of the present driveway and the proper use of drains for the new pool deck. Moreover, the overall drainage issue will be addressed in the construction drawings stage. This approach waS satisfactory to Mr. Dietz and he stated that based on our conversation he would not be attending the Thursday Design Review Board meeting. I have marked him for a copy of this letter. 3. V.nous letters from "inn.. Prior to initiating design on this property I met with Mrs. King to get an understanding of their concerns. Based on this meeting one of the key design criteria was to maintain the existing roof line and not to impact the King's existing water view in any way. As of this writing I have not been successful in meeting with the Kings. I will continue to try. Meanwhile, the plans as submitted meet the above criteria (That is, No change in the main roof line and no new impact on "water view") with the exception of the proposed remodeling of the existing chimney on the South East Comer of the living room, which, in its new "Mediterranean" style, is six inches wider than the existing chimney. Other specific responses to the King's October 31 5t letter follow: 1) Front Patio - I can not speak to the King's "past" view of the Yacht club, etc... However, the "elevated patio" mentioned in this section of the King's letter is actually six feet below the existing driveway grade, albeit, it is elevated from the lower garden on the downhill side. There is no BBQ on this deck. The magnolia trees are of the dwarf variety (Magnolia Grandiflora such as "Little Gem," "San Marino," or "8t Mary") and at maturity, 25 years, are 20-25' in height. They are also easily proned and will be less tall than the pine tree which is being removed. The scale of the new plantings relates to the scale of the streetscape and is designed to provide a street screen for privacy while improving the view impact from the uphill property. 2) Window area - We are a) replacing one double window with a French door where the use is now Bedroom and will become office, b) converting an existing window from a bedroom use to a closet use, c) eliminating a large skylight over the existing foyer, and d) adding a French Door with side lites to an office. While there are more windows, the use would suggest less "light" pollution. These windows are all below the existing eave line. We would disagree with the "overpowering 'eyesore" terminology. 3) Main Roof Peak - As noted we have made the maintenance of the existing roof one of our major design criteria We have no plans to develop any "void area" in the future. As EXHIBIT NO.~_ noted On the plans, the existing roofis not being changed and is in conformance with ~J \0 ~ II Tiburon height limits. 4. Roof over theaarage wing - The raising of this roof line by 2 feet on the front edge adds greatly to the architectural proportions of the home as viewed from the street and driveway;. the most common and public view of the home. We have not been able to view the story poles from the 'King residencet but believe that there is no water view impact The raising of the roof on the rear (North West) side of this wing may have a water view impact and we would entertain a design revision to slope the roof over the garage so as not impact the existing water view. 5) Chimney - As noted above, the proposed plan actually does add six inches to the width of the existing chimney. A second, new chimney is clearly shown on the plans and is on the down hill side of the house and is not visible from the uphill property. 6) Addition of Roof Eaves. These are mod~ downward extensions of the existing eaves appropriate for a "Mediterranean" style home. There is no view impact. 7) Enlanzement of Deck on Upper Leve1- This deck is created by eliminating a large skylight over the existing entry foyer and was not deemed necessary for story poles in our discussion with the Planning Department. A clarification on mv whereabouts. I live at 122 Red Hill Circle in Tiburon. Dming the first three months of October I was in Italy on Vacation. I received a call from Mr. King on Monday, October 24. I returned to the US on October 25 and called Mr. King on the 26th. He was reportedly traveling during the remainder of the week and we traded phone calls but were not able to connect to talk specifics. As noted earlier, I spoke with him this morning but he was not able to give me a specific time to meet. I will continue to make myself available and to push for a meeting. Respectfully submitted, t~~ AGENDA ITEM E4 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT NO. 's- f~ \ o~ ,\ TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: KRISTIN KRASNOVE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: 2 AUDREY COURT; FILE NO. 20540 SITE PLAN AND ,ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION. MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2005 PROJECT DATA: OWNER/APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: TYLER PHILLIPS AMORNRIT PUKDEEDAMRONGRIT 2 AUDREY COURT 058-231-10 20540 18,548 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN) M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) C OCTOBER 13, 2005 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)' as specified in Section 15303. . . PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted a request to make an addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an existing legal secondary dwelling unit located at 2 Audrey Court with a variance for excess lot coverage. The property slopes from east to west and has views towards Richardson Bay to the west. The property is currently improved with a 3,684 square foot single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting to demolish the southwest corner of the existing structure, which is currently made up of a deck, one-car garage, and a carport. The west side of the residence would be expanded into the demolished area to provide for an enlarged bedroom and bathroom. Town of Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. ') fJ ,. .~ \ \ STAFF REPORT ........................................ .... ...... An in-ground lap pool would be installed in the rear yard where the driveway is currently located. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage by 439 square feet to 3,082 square feet (16.60/0), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district; therefore a variance for excess lot coverage is requested (16.60/0 in lieu of the allowed 150,10). The proposed addition would also increase the floor area of the house by 1 ,220 square feet, and would result in a total floor area of 4,903 square feet, which exceeds the allowed floor area for a lot of this size; therefore a floor area exception is also requested The exterior fagade of the residence would be updated with new doors, windows, deck railings, and a stucco finish. An ornamental fence and driveway gate would also be installed. The basic footprint and most of the roofline would remain the same. ANALYSIS: The proposed addition and remodel would contribute an updated design to the neighborhood. The proposed addition would have a flat roof line with clay roof tile to match the existing roof. The existing brick chimney would be finished with stucco to match the fagade of the house. Large windows would be installed on the lower level around the house. The lower level addition would also include a reconfiguring of the existing secondary dwelling unit. The kitchen and living area would be expanded. A new wine storage area, laundry room, bathroom, bedroom, and closet would also be added on the lower level. The main level addition would include a reconfigured floor plan with a new bedroom and balcony, library, and expanded kitchen and family room. A patio with an in-ground spa would be constructed beyond the living room at the front of the house. The upper level floor plan would also be reconfigured with a 'new balcony and deck off the master bedroom on the west elevation, and a new balcony with french doors off would be located over the main level kitchen addition on the east elevation. The landscape plan would include the removal of one 25 foot tall pine tree. Stone pavers and a water fountain surrounded by a six foot stucco wall would be installed in the front entry to the left of the driveway. On the south side of the residence a new stone paver patio with steps leading down to a natural walking path and a water fountain would be constructed. Raised planters would be located along the west property line, and a new deer fence would be constructed around the perimeter of the property. The plans also propose a 6'6" tall metal entry fence with stone pier along the front property line. A condition of approval reducing the maximum height of the fence to six feet has been included. A new parking space would be located in front of the new stone patio and retaining wall. Although it is not clearly indicated on the plans, it appears from the topography of the site that the proposed pool deck in the rear yard would require tall retaining walls on the left side. A portion of these walls are within the left side yard setback, and would therefore be restricted to a six foot height limit (including the safety railing). Since a variance for excess wall height has not been requested, the wall and railing aspect of the project may need to be continued for further review. The close proximity of the walls and pool deck to the side property line would also contribute adverse privacy impacts on the property at 10 Acela Court. For these reasons, it is November 3, 2005 page 2 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT NO. '{ "" fj ~ oS{ \ \ recommended that the pool, pool deck, and subsequent retaining walls are either shifted away from the left side property line or reduced in size to eliminate the wall height issue and mitigate the privacy impacts. The Board is encouraged to view the proposed project from the rear yards of the properties located at 8 and 10 Acela Court to evaluate the privacy and aesthetic impacts. Since the proposed addition exceeds both the allowable floor area and lot coverage for the property, the Board should consider whether the proposed 1,220 square foot addition would contribute excess mass and bulk to the structure. Zoning As previously mentioned, the proposed dwelling would not comply with the lot coverage and floor area regulations of the RO-2 zoning district. Besides the requested variance and floor area exception, the project would be in compliance with all other zoning district requirements. Variance 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 similar zones. The 18,548 square foot lot size is smaller than the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for the RO-2 zone. This condition creates special circumstances that would deprive the owners of this property of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other undersized properties in the RO-2 zone have received variances for excess lot coverage. Therefore, granting the reduced excess lot coverage variance would not be a special privilege inconsistent with properties .in the vicinity. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would resultin practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Expanding the second story would be more intrusive than the proposed addition. Because a second story expansion would likely be difficult to approve due to potential view impacts, it would be a hardship to strictly apply the Ordinance in regards to lot coverage 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. November 3, 2005 page 3 of 6 Town of Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. 5' ~ <<i o.q \ \ .- . 1 .", ~ Of t/lllt "". ~/~'o O/.~ ....1 ....., ~, .~ .~i. r.~ .9~/ ~~'" F~' ('/."-:-::-.--- ~/o.'O ,('~~/.. .~ ifNI A ,~(.. ~. J . ~. STAFF REPORT As proposed, the excess lot coverage variance would not appear to have an adverse impact on views, privacy, or otherwise on the properties in the vicinity. Floor Area Exception As previously mentioned, the proposed dwelling would not comply with the Town's floor area regulations. In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Board must make the following findings as required by Section 4.02.08 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 proposed addition would be consistent with the development of properties in the vicinity. Numerous homes in the area significantly exceed the floor area requirements, and this project would not be incompatible with 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, the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and the dimensions of the lot. The applicant has stated the proposed proJect would be compatible with the physical characteristics of the site because due to the lot orientation and topography, the additions would not highly visible from surrounding properties or the street. The topography of the lot would reduce the visual impact of the addition on the property. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance for excess lot coverage and floor area exception. However, it should be noted ~hat the Design Review Board has generally discouraged applications that would exceed both the lot coverage and floor area ratio for a lot, as such projects often represent an overbuilding of the property. . . Public Comment To this date, one letter was received from the property owner at 10 Acela Drive regarding the location of the pool and pool deck. The property owner at 6 Audrey Court has submitted historic correspondence concerning the previous development of the property in regards to height. No other public comment has been received concerning the subject project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07,4.02.08 and 4.03.05 (Guiding Principles, Floor Area Exceptions, and Variance Findings by Acting Body) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California November 3, 2005 page 4 of 6 Town of Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. ~ fj S ~ \\ STAFF REPORT . ................... ............................ ... Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board agrees with staff's conclusions, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval. EXHIBITS: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Application and supplemental materials dated August 26,2005 3. Applicant's findings for the variance 4. Plans for the project 5. Letter dated November 6, 2001 from Michael King to Roger Hartley, received October 24,2005 6. Letter dated February 6, 2002 from Michael King to Roger Hartley, received October 24, 2005 7. Letter from James Deitz, received October 26,2005 November 3, 2005 page 5 of 6 Town of Tiburon 'EXHIBIT NO. S fJ " o~ \1 STAFF REPORT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2 AUDREY COURT FILE #20540 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and vqid 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 August 26,2005, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of August 26, 2005, 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. 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 must be shielded, down light type fixtures. 6. 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. 7. The decorative entry gate iron gate shall not exceed six feet in height. November 3, 2005 page 6 of 6 From: Kristin Krasnov i6) rs <<:;; ~ ~ ~ [E ~ ~ NOV 102005 ilJLAAT~,~~q. # D- \ P L 1-\ ~\l f\ll Kh3' o 1"1 rs ";'C!':<r" ~::..". . "."~,."....--,~......._....,...,-...,....,,.... TO\jV~\! ('F TlBJIPC);'!_,____,_, Page 10f2 EXIIIBTT NO. {" ~ 7 ~ 11 Connie ~ashman Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:50 PM To: Connie Cashman Subject: FW: Two Audrey Court LATE MAIL -----Original Message----- From: Tyler Phillips [mailto:tyler@jiller.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:07 PM To: Pwoeber@aol.com Cc: Kristin Krasnove Subject: Two Audrey Court Pat - Kristin Krasnove has kindly forwarded a copy of your November 29th e-mail to my attention. This e-mail is in response to your concerns. 1) As you know from the set of revised drawings which I left at your Home on November 8th or 9th, since the last Design Review Meeting, and as follow-up to my meeting with you at your home on November 3d, our design team has spent considerable effort and expense to effect a major redesign to insure that there is no negative imQact on your existing view. This redesign was outlined in the package I delivered to your home. Further, the story poles which were erected on or before November 10th accurately reflect this revised design. As there is no "expansion of the roof structure" other than a slight raising on the South side of the roof over the garage that is, all that is reflected in the story poles. 2) The lighting plan for the exterior of the house has been carefully designed to be invisible to others through the use of down lighting and landscape screens. We have provided details to Mark Casillas and would be happy to provide the same to you as well. Further, on the Northern elevation of the house, the lower floor, where the apartment deck is currently located, is completely shielded from your view by existing or proposed landscaping. The new balcony has been angled away from your view and the windows will not be visible. As a matter of fact, when viewed from your house, the amount of windows which can be seen, those on the upper floor of the North Elevation, have actually been reduced. 3) I will defer to the Planning Department and to the Design Review Board regarding the adequacy of the review time provided, but will point out that I was responsive to your request for a December first continuation date as opposed to the November 17th originally suggested by the Design Review Board at the November 3d meeting. As to the question of "bulk" ; yes, the house interior is substantially upgraded - new kitchen, baths, etc; but this upgrade takes place within the overall existing house footprint and under the existing house main roof. The main roof over the existing house is untouched, even the roof tiles remain the same, and more than 65 percent of the exterior walls remain the same. This is a remodel, not new construction. The added square footage derives primarily from conversion of the existing lower garage and carport from uncounted space to counted space. The use of balustrade for balconies is a distinctive architectural feature of this style of home and the balustrades we have proposed are in conformance with Tiburon's building codes. There are many similar balustrades throughout Tiburon. As to any relationship with Mr. Teiser. Other than my presentations to the Design Review Board, the only other connection I have with Mr. Teiser is that coincidentally the home I own and share with my wife in Tiburon, namely, 122 Red Hill Circle, was previously owned by Mr, Teiser. However, there was another owner, to whom Mr. Teiser sold that property and from whom I purchased that property, not from Mr. Teiser. I was actually unaware of Mr. Teiser's previous ownership until long after I had made my purchase, I have never met him EXHIBIT NO. ~ outside of a Design Review Meeting. V~ ~ · ~ \ \ Page 2 of2 As regards roof height, you may not be aware that in addition to the design revisions incorporated in the latest plans to mitigate any negative impact to the Bartel Court view, I also provided Mr. King with a conceptual design to lower the existing main roof bv three feet. This "lower roof' design change would be strictly voluntary on my part, would be very expensive, and is not in my proiect budoet. However, while it would add substantially to the view, and thus the value, of Mr. King's home, (and quite possibly to others albeit to a lesser degree) Mr. King was not willing to discuss costs and in so many words told me "not to expect approval anytime soon." Without any comment on the rights or wrongs of the past, you are correct to imply that this is probably the last time that there is any chance for the existing roof of 2 Audrey Court to be lowered. However, if those neighbors who will benefit aesthetically and financially from the lowering are not willing to pay, then it is not likely to happen. As regards your desire for another continuance, I strongly object. At my own expense I provided detailed copies of the revised design to all neighbors on or about November 9th. While I have been away for some of the past four weeks, I have been continually available bye-mail and I have responded to every e-mail or phone call within 24 hours of receipt. Representatives of the Design Team have been, and are, available throughout this extended review period. It is expensive to delay construction further and to the best of my knowledge there are no unresolved issues other than concerns with the existing main roof height which I'm have not budgeted nor proposed to change. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Respectfully, Tyler Phillips Connie Cashman Page 1 of2 q d'p'.' _ ..uqLATE.MAlL .#_1)_ IXHIBIT ~~. q ~ , From: Kristin Krasnove Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:48 AM To: Connie Cashman Subject: FW: 2 Audrey Ct, Tiburon r\ [E~ ((~~_._~ ~'\\:I'::'-~-'~"I~:-\\ Igj ~._...~ ~ "'-~~i'Ui I tr\l NOV L 9 2005 ~ -----Original Message----- From: Mark Casillas [mailto:mark@casillaslaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:07 PM To: Kristin Krasnove Cc: mmmkking@aol.com Subject: 2 Audrey Ct, Tiburon Dear Ms Krasnove, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed consruction project at 2 Audrey Court. This project is just south of my home at 8 Bartel Court, where my wife and I have lived since 1987, and I am worried that the following will interfere with our views of San Francisco, the Bay, and the Golden Gate Bridge: * Excessive roof height * Trees and bushes that will grow into our views of the City and Bay * Excessive exterior lighting that will create significant light pollution of our nighttime views of the City, Bay, and Golden Gate Bridge In addition to the foregoing concerns, today I learned of the serious design, planning, architectural, and other flaws with 2 Audrey Court which are discussed in the November 25,2005 Memo by Michael King. Mr. King is a Stanford trained civil engineer and licensed contractor with a lifetime of experience in this area, and has resided in Tiburon for nearly 35 years. 'Some of these problems date back to the very construction of the original house at 2 Audrey Court, and the several renovations to that property in the years since. Given the extensive nature of the "renovations" proposed - 2 Audrey Court is in fact going to be an entirely new house - this is a unique opportunity for the affected neighbors, the owner, and the Town of Tiburon to work together to achieve reasonable solutions to the flaws at 2 Audrey Court at minimal additional expense to the owner. It is vital that the affected neighbors and Town of Tiburon have a reasonable amqunt of time to review these problems prior to any hearing by the Design Review Board. I suspect that I am not the only affected neighbor who needs more time. I understand that the 2 Audrey Court owner has been on vacation out of the country from November 7-29. For these reasons I respectfully request that the DRB postpone consideration of this matter until the January DRB meeting, at the very least, to enable the Town and the affected neighbors to review these matters and work with the owner to resolve these issues. If you have any questions about my concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Many thanks and kind regards. Mark Casillas EXHIBIT NO. ~ ~ \Q of(', THOMAS O. OLLENDORFt- LA, t iVIAIL # .D. ( 8 Acela Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415/435-4168 Fax: 415/435-8362 1o)~~~~~~1ni ~ DEe I 200i ~ December 1, 2005 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Applicant Tyler Phillips 2 Audrey Court, Tiburon, CA Meeting December 1,2005 Dear Board Members O'Donnell, Beales, Bird, Doyle, and Teiser My property (comer of Audrey Court and Acela Drive) shares a western boundary line with Mr. Tyler's property and his application has a direct impact on my property. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting and therefore request that Mr. Tyler's application be continued until after January 1,2006; inasmuch as, I will be out of the country in December 2005. Sincerely, #~ Thomas Ollendorff Connie Cashman , Page 1 of2 EXHIBITNO...u It't MAIL #.~" , fj " ~ \ f"-" ..J"L..J From: Kristin Krasnove Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:49 AM To: aIlDRB; Connie Cashman Subject: FW: Two Audrey Court fD} ~ ~ ~ ~ VJ [~J\\i ~ DEe I 2005 'IV ~~....i -----Original Message----- From: Pwoeber@aol.com [mailto:Pwoeber@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:20 PM To: (Tiburon Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee) Tyler Phillips; lantierbf@msn.com; alefkof@netopia.com; Iynn@sfsu.edu; mbmorey@yahoo.com; MMMKKing@aol.com Cc: Kristin Krasnove Subject: Re: Two Audrey Court PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON Tyler- thank you for your message sent yesterday. I appreciate your clarification on the points that I e-mailed to Kristin (and Marinero Home Owner members), which she kindly forwarded to you. I'm most relieved with your assurance that there will be no negative impact on my existing views in structure or landscaping, and your assurance that the lighting glans will be invisible to me and the other neighbors, and in addition, that the extended roofheight and P-IQP-osed eaves. chimneys and decks will not be seen from our property. I do worry that the eaves and extensive balustraded porches might impinge on my existing views as there are no poles on site to show this extension overlooking Acela Drive. In regard to this, I request a recordable covenant that you will not plant or construct or install anything that will obstruct my views. The grading plans and elevations are not adequately shown in your plans. In regard to the adequacy of review time, I do want to bring to your attention that I did not request the continuation date for Dec 1. (You mention this fact in your e-mail) This date was decided on by the staff and the Design Review Board--which happened to be convenient for me, since, as I'd mentioned to you when you visited me, that I would be out of town on a work project in Bhutan, Asia, from Nov 6 through 24. I did not get in touch with you for the past few weeks as e-mail was virtually impossible in Bhutan. Thank you for explaining the 'non-relationship' with Mr. Teiser--which certainly is a coincidence and to me fully understandable, since I'm constantly astonished with the amazing coincidences that happen in my own life. Seeing as your project requires major renovations, if it's at all possible for you to reconsider lowering the height of the existing roof by a few more feet--Iowering by seven feet (rather than three) which would not cause loss of any interior quality as it's all dead space and would still allow a nine-foot height to the ceiling of the master bedroom on the second floor-- without expecting neighbors to assume this cost--this change may work as the magic elixir for the property's close neighbors Mr. and Mrs. King of 6 Audrey Court. In addition, elimination of the porch above the entrance door (on the east elevation as shown on your plans) might add to his acceptance. I do want to mention that I'm in sympathy with Mr. King's deep dismay at your plan for the porch above the front door as it will destroy his privacy in both his living and dining rooms. One other little point is the deer-proof fence around the whole property, which chips away at the open spaces for deer to move around. This is deer country and we love to see them and the wild hares grazing on the open spaces. Of course, the pool requires a fence, but a vineyard and orchard is ludicrous here on our Til'1uron hills. Don't you think that the above considerations (lowering the roof and eliminating the porch) are little enough in exchange for over-building the lot by 34%? Kristin please kindly forward this e-mail to the members of the Design Review Board. 12/1 /2005 MINUTES #21 TmURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 2005 EXHIBIT NO. " pj \ 6~ '1 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair O'Donnell A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair O'Donnell, Boardmembers Beales, Bird, Doyle and Teiser Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Krasnove and Minutes Clerk Flanagan B. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the item for 12 Francisco Vista Court was continued to the December 15,2005 meeting. D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD L 2 AUDREY COURT AREA EXCEPTION pmLLIPS, ADDITIONSN ARIANCEIFLOOR On November 3, 2005, the Design Review Board reviewed an application for the addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The property slopes from east to west and has views toward Richardson Bay to the west. The property is currently improved with a 3,684-square-foot single- family dwelling. At that meeting, the Board reviewed the project and considered public testimony. There were several concerns voiced by neighboring' property owners and the Board regarding the location of the pool and pool deck, type of landscaping and fencing, potential light pollution from increased windows, chimney height, view impacts from Bartel Court and the stucco color. The project was continued to this meeting to allow the applicant to address these issues. Tyler Phillips, owner, discussed his responses to issues raised at the last meeting and noted that he had distributed his plans to the neighbors for their comments. Boardmember Beales asked why the roof of the garage was being raised. Mr. Phillips responded that he proposes to raise it two feet for aesthetic purposes, as the roof is now flat. TmURON D.R.B. 12/01/05 1 EXHIBIT NO. b ~ :L u~ ~ Chair O'Donnell asked Mr. Phillips ifhe would be amenable to lowering the roof seven to eight feet as a tradeoff to the many uphill windows Mr. Phillips is seeking. Chair O'Donnell said that a neighbor had told him that Mr. Phillips was willing to do this for a certain price. . Mr. Phillips responded that he had not intended to lower the roof. He said that he could lower the roof three feet, but lowering it more would be aesthetically unattractive. He said that he did not budget for this and that the neighbors had not pursued this. Boardmember Beales noted that lowering the roof is not part of this application. Michael King stated that as least four of the neighbors have requested that this project be continued so that unanswered questions could be addressed. He stated that Mr. Phillips has said that lowering the roof would be worth a million dollars to Mr. King, and Mr. Phillips asked for money to do this. He characterized the project as overbuilding,' stating that the house is already at its maximum size and would exceed the lot coverage by more than 30 percent. He believed that the increased number of windows might cause the roof to collapse, and felt that the roof would not be allowed to be rebuilt as it is. He said that \. the Uniform Building Code limits window areas to 20 percent of a building's surface. He said that the proposed chimney height does not meet code and would have to be raised, which would block neighbors' views. He asked that the Board deny the application. Mark Casillas stated that he supports Mr. King's concerns, and felt that there are enough substantive issues that deciding on the matter tonight would be premature. He was concerned with nighttime lighting emanating from the house, and also thought that the roof height is excessive. Patricia W oeber stated that small changes had been made to the project, but she still supports Mr. King's concerns. She said that the house is in front of Mr. King's dining and living rooms. She said that there is a chance to lower the roof, which would solve long-standing problems from this property. She thought that a project that would devalue Mr. King's property and view should not be a basis to grant a variance. Mr. Phillips stated that the neighbors were given sufficient time'to respond to his revised plans and he would not like a continuance. Boardmember T eiser noted that the fIrst floor has many windows as well as the north elevation of the first floor, and yet the neighbors have complained about the roof. He felt that the lighting is an issue that can be resolved, and was concerned that the proposed design has an excessive amount of windows on both the fIrst and second floors. Mr. Phillips explained the reduction in the number of windows from the original submittal, and stated that no one will see the windows on the north side, and the upper level would have fewer windows than the previous submission. He said that only the second floor can be seen from the uphill neighbors. TIBURON D.R.B. 12/01105 2 EXHIBIT NO. C:::, fj3.~~ Chair O'Donnell stated that the project design has a lot of windows facing uphill, and that most homes are usually designed with windows facing toward views. He noted that five small windows are proposed in a garage with no view. He stated that the neighbors seem to be willing to put up with the excessive windows if the roof is lowered, and asked whether Mr. Phillips would be willing to lower the roof. He stated that there appears to be an opportunity for compromise. Mr. Phillips responded that it would be much more expensive to lower the roof than to remove windows, and said that he would be happy to modify any windows that affect neighbors. He said that he would have to complete an economic analysis on lowering the roof. He said that a three-foot reduction in the height of the roof would not satisfy the neighbors, and lowering the roof further would affect the aesthetics of the house. He said that he was unwilling to take on the total financial burden of lowering the roof even three feet. Boardmember Bird stated that there could be changes on the uphill side of the house to address the light pollution. She stated that the light pollution issue should not be' confused with bargaining for a roof change. Mr. Phillips responded that the hedge on the north side of the driveway screens the windows on the first level, but added that the number of windows could be reduced or made smaller to some extent. Boardmember Doyle noted that the lower level windows might not be visible when standing next to the house, but would be seen from the uphill neighbors. Boardmember Bird stated that she had concerns about the deck, with sound carrying to the uphill neighbors, and asked if it could be changed. Mr. Phillips responded that he had removed one small balcony. Boardmember T eiser stated that the roof is not a design issue before the Board. He said that the neighbors can negotiate it, but it remains a private issue. He said that his concern was with the number of windows. He said that the floor area exception and lot coverage variance do not add to the mass of the house. He said that he was concerned with the number of windows that would be viewed from the uphill neighbors. He said that light pollution to Bartel Court could be a concern if there is not adequate screening, but the number of windows could be reduced also. He said that the northern windows might be acceptable if the hedge provides adequate screening. Boardmember Bird stated that the house already is already a bulky building, but the variance would not change that. . She was concerned that the balcony creates an unnecessary active area. She stated that the number of windows should be reduced, and suggested that the sill height of those windows below grade be reduced. She said that it was unfortunate that the roof issue was not included in this application, but stated that it is inappropriate to introduce the roof height as a bargaining tool for the variances. She TIBURON D.R.B. 12/01/05 3 EXHIBIT NO. f:, fj 'i f)~ '1 said that she could make the findings for the variance and exception, but would like to see reductions to the windows and balcony. Boardmember Beales noted that 300 square feet of the proposed project involves the conversion of a carport to living space, and that the remainder would simply fill in portions of the house. He characterized this as a stealth project that would not impact the mass of the building. He said that he could go along with reducing the number of windows, but noted that the windows in the garage and hallway would be in low use areas of the house. Boardmember Doyle stated that the roof is not part of what is being discussed. He said that the changes had gone a long way toward resolving the previouSly raised issues. He said that there would be a lot of windows facing uphill, which provides the potential for light pollution. He said that the project would not really add to the mass of the house. He agreed that the windows should be reduced a bit. Chair O'Donnell stated he would advocate for a short continuance to reduce the windows a bit. He said that the architect should have the opportunity to determine which windows should be removed. He felt that there is an opportunity for compromise on the roof, suggesting that it be lowered by three feet. Boardmember Beales reiterated that lowering of the roof is not part of the application, but suggested that it could be financed jointly with the neighbors. 'Mr. Phillips asked fot a conditional approval of the project, with the Board to determine a percentage reduction in the area of the windows on the uphill side. MIS, BealeslBird (passed 3-2, Doyle and O'DonneU dissented) to determine that the project is categoricaDy exempt from the provisions of CEQA and approve the application subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff report, with the additional condition of approval requiring that the windows on the east elevation be reduced in area by 30 percent, to be reviewed by Staff. 2. 12 FRANCISCO VISTA COURT INGLEDEW, ADDITIONSN ARlANCE: CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15, 2005 TmURON D.R.D. 12/01/05 4 4. 2 AUDREY COURT PHILLIPS, ADDITIONSNARlANCEIFLOOR AREA EXCEPTION EXHIBIT NO. 7 fj \ 6~ ~ The applicant has submitted a request for an addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an existing legal secondary dwelling unit located at 2 Audrey Court with a , variance for excess lot coverage. The property slopes from east to west and has views toward Richardson Bay to the west. The property is cUrrently improved with a 3,684- square-foot single-family dwelling. The applicant is asking to demolish the southwest comer of the existing structure, which currently consists of a deck, a one-car garage and a carport. The west side of the residence would be. expanded into the demolished area to provide for an enlarged bedroom and bathroom. An in-ground lap pool would be installed in the rear yard where the driveway is currently located. A variance is requested for excess lot coverage, along with a floor area exception Tyler Phillips, owner, discussed the project, and stated that he will maintain the legal second unit. He discussed changes that had been made per neighbors' requests. Boardmember Teiser asked about the ceiling height il). the area expanded with the flat roof. Mr. Phillips responded that the ceiling height in that area would be increased from the current 8 foot height to 9.5 feet. He said that he could lower and slope the roof if so desired. In response to questions, he stated the balcony that overlooks the neighbor would be a three foot deep architectural feature. Boardmember Doyle asked about the number of windows being added to the uphill side, and stated there would be a lot of light going upward. Mr. Phillips responded that the existing windows are in bedrooms that is high usage and there is a skylight above the foyer. He said that the proposed project includes no skylights and that the windows open to an office and a closet. He said that a window would be converted to a French door over a small balcony and another window would be converted to a French door with two sidelights. Michael King distributed before and after photographs of his view, and stated .that one was of the existing condition and the other was of the original house. He asked about the front patio and stated there are no story poles and he does not know the impact to his view. He stated that two weeks' notice from the Town for this ambitious plan did not give him adequate time to review the project. He said the house has been remodeled four times. With this addition, Mr. King calculates the owner is asking to expand the house more than 25 percent of the allowable coverage and floor area ratio. Mr. King said he asked for a thirteen percent increase in a remodel of his own house, and was told it was too large, so he reduced it to ten percent. He said the window areas and two balconies and a deck are a concern, as well as privacy and the luminary effect to his house. He said a number of neighbors are affected by the high roof. Mr. King recommended a six-foot reduction and a flat mansard roof. He said the roof over the garage was previously denied and the height had to remain at its current height. He believes nothing is to be built on the site higher than the flat r~of. Mr. King asked for story poles in the front yard where his prime views would be impacted. He said the two-foot addition on the garage TIBURON n.R.B. 11/3/05 4 EXHIBIT NO. ? fj~o~ ~ has no functional value and was previously denied by the Design Review Board. He said the northwest comer is not as depicted. He believes roof eaves have an impact on the view. He said there were no story poles installed for the upper deck off the master bedroom. He would like the existing main roof lowered. Mr. King stated trees that grow to 20 feet would take away his view and the proposed plantings should be altered. He said there is potential for a lot of noise from the proposed facilities in the front of the property . Patricia Wova stated she submitted a letter, and added that the story poles are not clear. She said the front comer poles facing Acela Drive that face Mt. Tamalpais would take away 20 feet of her view, as mentioned in her letter. She asked whether the poles represent a balustrade or walls. She asked where the roof will be. She stated it appears that this will be a huge and busy fa~ade on a small lot. She said it already blocks her City view and she asked what color the roof and house will be. Bruce Portner stated the house was built 35 years ago. Mr. King has had story poles up for 2.5 years and nothing has happened. He said it seems that a house that has been there for 35 years with Town approval of the roof height has established a precedent that it is allowed. Tom Olindoff, 8 Acela Drive, stated he first met with the applicant four hours ago. He said he did not receive a copy of the late mail. His concerns have to do with the privacy issue. He said Mr. Jim Deets also has problem with privacy. He believes the lap pool and pool area.in the northwest portion of the property are a concern. He said the applicant has not asked for a variance for setbacks and on the plans, and there is intrusion on all four sides with the pool, parking and the front patio. He said the retaining wall that supports the pool is not mentioned on the existing drawings. He stated the height, type and the timer of fountain are a concern because the fountain is above his property, and there would be adverse effects if it were on 24 hours a day. He said the deer fence on the western side of the property is a concern and he would like to learn its height, type and wire because it directly impacts his house. Ms. Wova added she called the owner of 4 Bartel who is out of town, and she believes two weeks is not enough time to respond to this application. Mr. Phillips stated Drawing A-2.1 shows the wing toward the garage for which the footprint remains the same. He said where it lines with the main part of the house, a portion of the deck will be converted to family space. He said there is a supporting story pole that is not a line of the building. He stated the building has not been extended and the front patio is six feet below the driveway. He said from the lower garden, one walks up to it, but from the driveway and entry to the house, one walks down. He said he will limit plant material to an eight-foot maturity, which should give back to the Kings their view of the yacht club. He believes he understood what the Kings wanted and their water view was not to be changed. TIBURON n.R.B. 11/3/05 5 EXHIBIT NO. ? fJ 3 ~..) Boardmember Teiser asked ifhe would consider changing the existing roof to a mansard roof to match the design of the new roof. Mr. Phillips responded he will keep the footprint and use the garage and carport space and below the house for the expansion. He plans on keeping the roof as it is. He said will change the proposed color of the house. He will also work with changing the windows. He will check to ensure the chimney is to code. He said he could convert both fireplaces to gas and the chimney could be lower. Boardmember Teiser stated he recommends a continuance because there is enough redesign in the lap pool area to warrant additional review. He would like to learn where the pool area will be. He would also like a clarifica~ion of fence and wall elevations, and the retaining wall for the pool should be clarified. ,The height of the deer fence and items in the setbacks should be clarifi~d. He believes there is enough change to require new drawings. Boardmember Doyle stated the Design Review Board has had less than a week to look at the project. He said would like to know about many things. He stated the design is beautiful, but he wants more time to visit affected neighbors and look at the proj ect. Boardmember T eiser added, outdoor parking spaces are entitled for guests and there is no restriction for people parking on a fairly permanent basis on the outside. He said the Board cannot deal with what happened 25 years ago, only with what exists and what is proposed. He would propose an alternate color. Vice Chair Bird stated this will be a great improvement to the neighborhood, a nice home. She said she also needs more time to see what the result will be with the concessions Mr. Phillips addressed and the future addressing of neighbors' issues. MIS, Teiser/Doyle (passed 3-0) to continue this item to the December 1, 2005 meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. 11/3/05 6 1:::1' , m~m. -riC , Q~:D . o:o.~ ~ -4 .,' ~.~ -n ~ .cf;Z C:-- ~ ~ '::: ~, "'-\ ~ ~ 0, -; ~:r:.J \:) m, ., ~ ("-ti ~: ~ ~ ~ m n' , ~I~.~ , ~'.,._ " ~I~ -.cD \:):r.. I !c ~ ,;f"- Z- , r-r~ ",:",,;0 ,,{tI &-:r_ =e.:~~.-:~~ . zZ -' ~ mm ~ tIl;: : (I) '. , . =, ~~', ' :a ~ " :.: 0'" . :Ii~ '~,: m~' ' "." ,,~.': . mi .~" , (") 1 . -4: . '_I... <:: ,: m: .c= (I) .. . ~- ,.;' : Z. ::. C[ . CD .: :1', . nr. '-" ,.r', ": . c:: ."< O! "1ft'. 1:, ')> , CD 0. ~ ~.-. -. ...- I I l ''1, cr /., .,.; '~ ." ~ " EXHIBIT NO. ~ , I~ ~~ ~ fj I ~ '-' lin:t ~Q ~ ~ {t\ J;L 1~lr ~7' m I ~ l~ .. i'""tS --1 i (l1 (\\ ! ~ l~~ ~('- ~(i\ "'~ o--!; ~r -uG c:I roW I~ ~ :g~ l\i ~ {Il~ rl~ ~ \t rn. . " ~,~ 1< ~ {tlrn ~ ,'- It c. {)..l' c- ~ .. ~ ...~. I~ ~I~ I: ~~~ f~ :c~ ~ I~ \l-- \P ~ !~ {11U\ ~ 10 (1l v . :r..~v 1"1\ \l (--: tu b ~o~ l~ 3=~.j tl\ :r.:Q Q ~ (Il \}\ \J .:- )- c-~ 1.. I {it ~~ Q !~ -,-< -\ tIS: 1\1 I\} r I~ .. " -...- .. ~m ()OOl c: ~ < c-_ c.. r- ,-l rD (\\ ~ J= ft\ ,'1'. '7C 1\ f~ iE- ~~~~I - " '.' tniP-n < t::~ {\t r-~ I7fC? ~Il':r:... ~:g~ ~m~ -=-\ ~ ~{ , m",...~ ~{fl I tit . ':' . . ~U\tl' __c~ -t f- ,. :r:.;F-{l1 ~' (": c.. ~ -\ -l--t< o ':I: {\\ ro" {'f\S $" . . I~ ~ (11$< , (lI ~ (11 lf~tb~ <~~~ !l'~c:~' ! I'U r:r.. ' ro~~ ~u m .! .~ FRCJw1 : 332 PINE ST. A5SOC J AlES, LLC PJOE NO. 415 9812952 Jan. 19 2B06 03: 09PM Pi Michael J. King 6 Audrey CO\1f1 Tiburon, (:alifomia 94920 ~ ~<C~~~~ . I , JAN I 9 2006 I~ EXHIBIT NO. q fj\~1 ~ PLANN!NG D!VISIOr~ TOW~j OF.lIBURON 18 January 2006 TO: Kristen Krasnove RE: Michael and Kathleen King 2 Audrey Court Appeal Scheduled for 1 February 2006 FROM: Dear Kristen: As past of the staff report to the City Council we hereby request a model for t.he proposed 2 Audrey court remodel, showing al~ the glas8 exterior and the eastern porch, toqether with a statement from the City Engineer that the remodelinq can be done without demo1ition of the existinq hiqb roof and within the UBe max~um allowance for exterior 91as& area. We a1so hereby request from you, once Againr poles and a grading plan quantifyinq any import fiJ.l and sho~in9 the elevations of all significant improvements for the extensive patios front and rear, including for retaining wa11s, BDQ wa11 and housing, patio ' levels and heights of heavy posts and balust:.rades, plant.er boxes and proposed plan~in9. The Town of Tiburon appeals application clearly calls for story poles and ,no't limited to only the house structure -- at least 14 days prior to the da~e of any appeal hearing. cc; Scott Anderson, Planning Director ~ ~ (G ~ ~ ~ ~I~II In,' I. ..'....::.: '11~)JI ~j U I ,... .' ';j.; L) I ! ~. I .....-...::, 'l--';::,' . ~i ;;~- -i)\~:~ I () N -.J L-_ ______-li0.:\!Ji..: J:.J.nJ R 0 ~J_ LATEtvlAlL #2- DAN AND JOANNA KEMPER 1911 STRAITS VIEW DR. TIBURON, CA 94920 ph.:415,435.6554 fax:415.435.9560 January 28th, 2005 To the Town Planning Staff and Town Council Members, My husband and I have known Tyler and his wife Jill, since they first moved to 8 Audrey Court in 1998. In addition to being friends, I've also had the pleasure of serving with Tyler on the Angel Island Board of Directors for several years, where he added considerable value to the Board's long term planning as well as to the planning and implementation phases of one of the significant building restoration projects. He has advised my husband Dan and I on some of our own house plans and I've advised him on some of the landscaping at the homes he has remodeled. He remodeled his own home on Audrey court b~autifully with great attention to the needs of the neighbors. As I understand it, his plan for 2 Audrey Court is in keeping with the neighborhood character. I have always found Tyler to be a thoughtful, creative person and a man of integrity. Yours Sincerely Joanna Kemper