Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1995-11-15 (2) L OF ocroeeR 14, I qq,. M'N~ -roW" QAcuJe,\L t16!rI~tr "7 10, Plans for Construction of Two Dwellings at 1860 Centro West - Williams. Contract Planner Allsep stated that the agreement between the Town and the Williams had been executed requiring certain alterations by the Williams to their June, 1990 plans, and the that the new detailed plans were to be reviewed by Council. Town Attorney Sharp advised Council that the Agreement did not compel them to accept any or all of the design features, and that they could judge whether a feature had a negative impact per the Agreement He also said Council should keep in mind whether the spirit of the agreement had been met Council had questions regarding the changes called for in the Agreement, e.g. the elimination of two rooms, and whether they could question certain design features in the new plans. such as a copper roof, skylight, and Southwestern style of one of the buildings. They expressed concern about compatibility with other homes in Old Tiburon. Planner Allsep said that although the new TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1065 October 4, 1995 4 ~~ EXHIBIT NO. 2. r l L (--c- , (", . -' .., plans in some ways were a departure from the old ones, they were also an improvement over the 1990 plans in other ways, Planning Director Anderson agreed that the scaling back of the size was an improvement and that a lot of the changes previously requested by the Design Review Board had been included in the new plans, Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing, Ed Riggin, 1876 Centro West, said the homes were being build on "spec" and that the Williams might not be able to sell them, He wanted to see a stipulation preventing subsequent owners from turning the homes into rental units. Stephanie Riggin, 1876 Centro West, was surprised at the size and design of the homes and said they did not compliment the neighborhood. Frank Buscher, 1751 Centro West, President of Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowner's Association, said 12 out of 19 people at the Homeowner's meetings showed concern about the size of the homes to be built, Wmston Franklin, 1857 Mar West, asked for extra vigilance from the Town administrative team through the building permit process to ensure that the safety and design concerns of the neighborhood were addressed, Planner Allsep said that the Agreement required compliance with building permits, and that soil studies for and the soundness of the retaining wall would be reviewed. Freda Neureberg, owner of 1844-46 Centro West, asked for "intelligent scrutiny" of the project Susan Neureberg Ashton, 1846 Centro West, asked for a discrepancy on the assessor's map regarding property lines to be addressed, Planning Director Anderson said the conditions of approval developed by Staff would include confirmation of property lines, Mike Egan, 1866 Centro West, less than one year in the neighborhood, said that the construction of the homes would negatively impact his privacy and view, Hearing returned to CounciL [Verbatim transcript attached as Exhibit A.] In response to Mayor Thompson's question to the Williams whether they would agree to this meeting as a preliminary review, Mr, Williams replied that they would stick to the Agreement and prepare a written response to the questions regarding design details posed by CounciL Town Attorney Sharp said the assent of the applicant was nOI needed in order for Council to pursue its review but suggested that Council place it on their next meeting agenda. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1065 October 4, 1995 5 ... l L (- (~: -' ------ r Diane Williams asked for a list of the details required by Council. Planning Director Anderson said the trouble was not with the new drawings but in comparing them with the June, 1990 plans which had very few details, H. PUBLIC HEARING ") 11, Leaf Blower Ordinance, Planning Director Anderson presented the revised ordinance to Council for second reading, The ordinance would restrict the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in residential areas to Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m, to 4:00 p.m, Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing. Martha Murray, 102 Lyford Drive, said it was not fair to compare leafblowers with construction noise, and said how disruptive they were to her and her family when used by their neighbors. Joe Murray, 102 Lyford Drive, said he was more sensitive to noise now that he works at home, and felt that leaf blowers were for the benefit of a few and a disturbance to many, Hearing returned to Council. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To read the Revised Leaf Blower Ordinance title only Thayer, Seconded by Nygren AYES: Unanimous Mayor Thompson read, "An Ordinance of the Town ofTiburon Adding a New Chapter 30 to the Tiburon Municipal Code Restricting the Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers" MOTION: Moved: Vote: To Pass Second Reading of Aforementioned Ordinance Thayer, Seconded by Nygren AYES: Nygren, Thayer, Thompson NOES: Ginalski, Wolf I. UNFTNTSHED BUSINESS ") 12. Fraige Precise Plan Amendment Planning Director Anderson said the Planning Commission had voted 3-0 to adopt the guest parking alternative proposed by the applicant and Town staff. Councilmember Nygren asked whether the Resolution contained the revised Condition No.5 recommended by the Planning Commission, Planning Director Anderson affirmed this, Mayor Thompson opened the p~blic hearing. Jim McCarton, 205 RoundhiII Road, said that applicant had requested numerous changes to the TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1065 October 4, 1995 6 ~... r) ~ TRANSCRIPT OF 10/4/95 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING PORTION OF TAPE NO, 3/ ITEM NO, 10 - WILLIAMS' APPLICATION BEGINNING AFTER PUBLIC HEARING Councilmember Thaver: one being specifically, "There were some obvious points brought up about the details, ,.. 1)* the Fence--I'd like to have details as to material and height, so forth, 2) Retaining Wall, which is a change from the 1985 and 1990 plans, although there appears to be some elevations on the new plans, that might give some clue as to the height of the retaining wall, but nothing that expressly sets out how high the retaining wall is, I am reminded of a retaining wall matter in force a couple of years over on ---Ave. and Miraflores that was an extremely emotional matter-- [tape garbled] I think it's really important to know the dimensions of this particular retaining wall, That is a steep grade and there are considerations not only for the aesthethics and invasion of light and air and possible intrusion of peering down over the retaining wall into the backyard patio of the downhill neighbors, and the problems associated with objects rolling down, safety construction, so I think we need these details, shown here on the plans I have, I'd like to know the materials that would go into the construction of this retaining wall, how it would be anchored, its height, and those kinds of construction matters. Scott could probably could come up with a laundry list. 3) The point was made by eliminating interior walls you don't necessarily reduce the size of the building, and there were called out in the Settlement Agreement [tape garbled], and in the South Building eliminating two rooms [garbled] mass and size and bulk of the structure, not just taking down some interior walls which would be pointless as far as the meaningful review, so I have interpreted the Settlement of the South Building as to mean the two rooms, in addition to that would be the size of the structure and the mass and bulk of the structure [garbled). I would like that to be made clear in some further presentation, it's not clear to me at all that that is what is here at this point. 4) The property line delineation has been adequately discussed and certainly it is a vital matter that we need clarification and ultimately some clear identification of the property line as a solution. 5) The matter of the sewer has been brought up. I know that when the time comes for the constructioQ permits to be issued, you've got to have a sewer permit to hook up. I'd like to know at this point whether an additional hook-up is required or not. That was an issue presented to me as something we should know about. Town Council October 4, 1995 Item No, 10 EXHIBIT No.L . ~ n J 6) There was mention made ofa dining room adjustment [tape garbled] (North Building). The question is whether this was really a design change or whether it was just reconfiguring the dining room in sr,me way that might be a bigger view obstruction, and I would like to know whether this constitutes a further view obstruction or not, and certainly I'd oppose any change that would increase a view obstruction, Those are my general impressions at this point.", Councilmember Wolf: I don't have too much to add to Jerry, I am still confused about the two rooms. I do see that the total square footage should be reduced by over 1000 square feet, and it appears that they have done so, I also noticed that there's besides the 144 sq.ft. room that's b~n eliminated, there's a storage and mechanics room eliminated. I don't know ifa storage and mechanic's room counts as a roorn, that's maybe debatable whether that's really a room. But I would certainly welcome further opinion about this, I still find this very, urn, I'm still uncertain as to whether this meets the agreement or not and whether we have room to ask for additional reductions, I mean it does amount to 959 sq.ft., and whether that's comparable to two rooms, I don't know, Town Attornev Sharp: I may be able to do some research on that. Councilmember Wolf: I would certainly appreciate some guidance on that, and, rather than repeat what Jerry said, I'm sorry I guess Frank Buscher isn't here, but there are obviously some people who live in Old Tiburon, and the concern was expressed about the size of the buildings and I just want to point out that this did start before FAR's were implemented in the Town of Tiburon. Under today's current FAR's, this project is 72% over the allowable, so this should not, we're obviously in a situation here, and what we can do is somewhat limited, but I wanted to reassure everybody that the FAR's that we have in place should hopefully prevent anything like this from happening in the future, As I say, this is 72% over what would be allowable today under the Town's FAR's, so that's alL Councilmember Nygren: Okay, I don't want to repeat Jerry, but I concur with what Jerry said, and I feel that 70%, hopefully the Williams will take that to light as far as the impact that this construction will do on the neighborhood, and the impact as to the value of what you will be doing to not only your own project but to the neighborhood by putting something in this area that is totally upscale and massive and inappropriate and fitting, and you yourself by doing this, you know, may possibly do hann to yourself, financially, in the long run, So, also, things that I have noticed are - 1)* The trees, and definitely redwood trees and pine trees are not allowed, Also, I'd like to see you come back with a plant pallet that is required by the MMWD and the Town, we have:a list of drought tolerant plants that are allowed through vegetation and have those included and reuse your selection and make sure your selection does abide by what those are, Many of those that are new don't. I Town Council October 4, 1995 tlem No, 10 2 EXHIBIT No.L (\ n ,~.- -,/ .,~. believe, fit to that regulation, 2) Also, the driveway issue is a big concern as far as safety. I would definitely want to have our Town Engineer look at the elevations and the drawings to show and meet the requirements and also bring into conformance how this driveway relates to the contiguous and adjoining driveways int he neighborhood. I'd like to see that to make sure we are not creating a hazard, for your residence and well as for the adjoining residents. 3) Definitely we have to get the lot line, before anything else we have to get the lot line resolved, That makes a big impact. I don't know, Scott, I think you said you could make that a condition of approval. I can't in my mind set a condition of approval and then find that there needs to be changes made, I would put that down, I'd like that to come back so that this Councilor the next Council can make that decision rather than leaving it to a staff situation of, well, if doesn't, I think it needs to come back and be resolved at the Council, not in a condition of approval, Also, the community has to hear that and be involved in that too, 4) As far as the roofing, copper roofing in that particular neighborhood, copper roofing particularly, remember in Belvedere, we had tremendous, I mean copper roofing if it is not done right or the color can be extremely reflective, it can be actually garish, you don't know what it will turn out. Only in certain times did you show it before and the impact of where you show it, I would say would be inappropriate, I would like you to come back with slate or some other less intrusive material. 5) As far as the skylight, that skylight on the plan is huge, so there's no way even if it's tinted in bronze that you can control the light from inside the house, it will be totally intrusive to anybody uphill, so I'd like to see that changed to something much more controllable or eliminated in some way. 6) I find that the two designs are very dissonant with the neighborhood. I could say that if you go to the top of Gilmartin, you have a Tudor house and next to the Tudor house you will also have a very modem house, it does not belong in town. I'd like to see somewhat of a modification, I know it's a beautiful design, I have to agree in looking at that, wow, I'd love to live in that house, Southwest, I was in Taos, but this is not Taos, this is Tiburon, and if you place it next to a building of which and I can't say much about the Tudor one but that had been previously approved, but you maybe might want to work something to the southwest design that would be a little more harmonious with the neighborhood and the adjoining house, and for yourself to place that house is not in your best interest to have something so dissonant. So definitely I'd like to have that placed back to even though the previous design had balconies with vines growing over it, it was still not, I'd say this is an improvement in design if you look at design in isolation, But Town Council October 4. 1995 Item No. 10 3 EXHIBIT NO. A . ,M r r-, I. : you aren't looking at this in isolation, you're looking at this is in a total context so this really should be looked at what works with the adjoining, and this particular change I don't feel would do that. 7) I think that, Jerry made reference to the retaining wall, but also with that much retaining wall, we have no idea what the drainage system will do to the downhill neighbor, and I would like a detail of not only the retaining wall but what the details of what the drainage systems will be and how you plan to handle that run- off so that it doesn't affect your downhill or adjoining neighbors. And also, by adding this, how much fill and cut are going to have to create within this project, what is the impact so we have some idea of the, if you bring in 37 trucks, what is the impact to the road and the fact you will have to do repairs or whatever to it, for the damage that's done by heavy equipment being brought into and how much, So we should specifically how much cut and fill will be required, I would like to .., 8) Jerry alluded to the view conidor. I think we should have a specific, you know, look a little more specifically at how this will affect the adjoining neighborhood, and also, I have noticed you have new window placement and decking placement from what you have previously, and so that is a change, and how does that--the windows and decks--affect the neighbors of the adjoining neighborhoods and this would change, I think the of privacy and light pollution, sunlight blockage and this hasn't been answered with these new changes. So, those are, and once again, I don't think that I could say that these changes are - to leave the staff to make the decision, I think it's important to the neighborhood to do that, I'd like those done at the Council. Councilmember Ginalski: Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement requires that detailed plans be submitted to the Town in order to analyze this project, Since the Town Council is acting in its legitimate authority as Design Review Board in this capacity, it seems only appropriate that the Applicant give us plans which would be expected to be received at the DRB level. Accordingly, my suggestion is this, perhaps, John, you can think about this while I'm playing it out. I would like to consider this evening's exercise as what we could call an initial or courtesy review, I think that the Applicant should be given an opportunity to come back with some detailed plans and submit them to the Town that would be considered the first review under Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement With that, then we could have the staff take a much detailed look, that's what I'd like anyways, and have an examination of the 1990 plan versus the details of the plans we're getting this month, and make a list of the changes in these two buildings from 1990 to today with respect to the, you know, starting with the size and going down to the fenestration of the windows, if you wish, And make a recommendation as to each one of these changes as to whether or not they have a negative impact, because right now, you know, I'm left with kind of an amorphous, you know, pleasant feeling about this, but I would like a line item discussion of what changes occurred on these proposals in the five-year interim, and armed with that, then we can come back with our first review under the Settlement Agreement and incorporate into it the comments that we heard from the neighbors this evening, Hopefully, the Town Council October 4.1995 110m No. 10 4 EXIDBITNO. A- . ( <~ Applicant has been listening and will be able to pre-incorporate some of these suggestions. Then we can have a much more meaningful second meeting under the Settlement Agreement and be able to come to grips with what respect we have before us. I am not going to list all, you know, the whole plethora ofissues that have been raised by my colleagues, but I certainly join in their concerns and state that this is Old Town, I live in Old Town, there is a notion of unity, there has some form and there has to be some size and complimentary design and, I know what you're doing and I understand why we're here today, but I would just ask as a neighbor that you consider the comments that we've made and [tape garbled]. Mavor Thomoson: Okay, I think you've got a pretty good feel to where we're going so far, I was going to make the same sort of suggestion that Mark just made, I felt the same way where we are acting as a Design Review Board, This project has gone through many years, this is the first time I've had to review these plans, others have been on the Design Review Board and have dealt with this at another time, but I had that same reaction where we need to have much more detailed drawings on what the actual changes are. Another thing is that because you're dealing with such an abnormality of these two homes being put on this one lot, the standard conditions the staff would apply later, I think would have such impact that you're going to have to go through that beforehand also, we're going to have to do some of that before, you know, because I think it's going to cause changes. I think there are going to be problems are going to affect design that we're going to be involved in, So we're going to have a to do a preview of that, which means it's going to have to go by Sia, Tony, Dean, and whoever else. That will help us get some questions and honestly, so we can have a meaningful process, get you what you want, get you what you're entitled to, as well as, and we'll be better equipped to help you through that process I think. I think to stumble in right now, I've got so many questions, let me then give you some direction that I feel really strongly about, so you can think about that before you come back. And that is, 1)* The style of the Southwest home, I had the same reaction as that I thought "Taos" and while it's Southwestern, Southwestern is a derivative of Spanish and these are 8-inch logs, that means the diameter of the log is going to be, you know, this distance, and it's just that, along with a very light stucco color we're going to have here next to, between the dark stone home and the Callister home, which is the dark shingle and wood just on the right, if you're looking, say, from Main Street. It's just, I know this is the hardest thing to comment on because it's taste and everyone has their own taste, I just think, and I hate commenting about taste, but it's just radically different from the other homes, it's just radically different, And I think it's just going to, besides just the size of the two homes that are going to jut out there on that pretty-much almost point, the size, they're going to jut out so much, that we've got to do whatever we can to make them blend in with the other homes and the environment of the hillside, And I know there is room ;vithin our agreement that we're going to have to look at this style, because this style is so radically different, you know between the two I would definitely want, even though it was a bigger house and had more mass, the linear style was much more in Town Counc,l October 4, 1995 Item No. 10 5 EXHIBIT NO..Jl r-'. C r- ( '., tune with the homes on either side in thetirst drawing, although something else might be much better, So I just had to feature that, just in tenns of the whole, because of the visible effect that it's going to be right there so prominently above our downtown. Then I had the same concerns about the other details that everyone else brought up, Councilmember Nvgren: Andrew, could also add possibly the blue trim in contract, I don't think, I mean if you think of that, what were they going to make the blue trim allover the place? Mayor Thomoson: Well, that's just it, I'd concentrated on the Southern home here, Councilmember Nvgren: Yeah, but they have the blue on both homes which there's nothing in the neighborhood at all. You know, it's a beautiful blue, but when you look around the neighborhood, there's nothing. End of Discussion of Details of Plans * Numbering added by Transcriber Diane L. Crane, Town Clerk October 6, 19956:30 p,m. THIS IS A TRUE AND CERTIFIED COPY. TOWN CLERK Town Council October 4, 1995 Item No. 10 6 EXHIBIT NO.1L '- ,.. - ,~ I re'Ji C;;: TiElRCN --'-T'I""" -" -~'''l'''ITY \" Dt:.:-'r.n II...,.' .- \...~:".J'"'I.l DC'.le: ~- \ -,-.. ! n OCT 1 0 1995 1 ......r...."'-- n.:= ,.::'" - I 1i"I....~1.-. L::';: .~ Having received the typed minutes of the council meeting only yesterday, we will attempt to address most of the council members comments regarding what they would like. October 10, 1995 To Tiburon Town Council, We wrote a summary of our changes en numerating four rooms that we had eliminated from the south residence. The amount of space eliminated from this building was estimated at 959 square feet The area eliminated from the residence allowed for rooms to be combined, and/or eliminated. Regarding the north 'property line dispute', we had a survey done by William Lockett in 1981, when we first began developing plans to build on our property, but did not record the survey. A more recent survey done by Linda Carruthers in preparation for our being able to build agrees completely with his survey. Please refer to Linda's letter for a brief relevant history of surveys of the neighborhood. Our recent survey has been recorded. In reference to the view of the north neighbor and the elevation of the north residence that faces her property - the lower level depth of the building is unchanged, the first fioor depth is reduced, and her vieW improved, by eliminating a three foot deck with a three foot high railing around rt, and finally, the second fioor depth is reduced by four feet Since the largest middle turret, which protruded the most into her view, has been pulled back out of her view completely. A deck, door to the deck, and several windows facing the north have been eliminated to protect her privacy. Some of the trees in the landscape plan were objected to. We will eliminate the three coastal redwoods along the ..Jl. east portion of the north border of the property. We WIll substrtute Alnus rhombifiora (trees from the alder family I\' are on the recommended list obtained from the planning department) for the other coastal redwoods. The other trees on the landscape plan, hawthome, redbud, and red maple, also have their types represented on the plan. The two birch trees WIll be replaced with the more drought resistant red maples. Podocarpus gracilior is on the list All of the shrubs are on list except for the faloe heather, but the code allows for a small percentage of unlisted plants to be included. The one pool In our revised plan IS smaller than was the first pool for the south reSidence. It has been moved more to the south to place it primarily behind a parking lot area and further away from our downhill neighbors' patio. Also, as mentioned before, the pool deck area and stairs and walk to the lower side of the pool have been eliminated. The sewer hookup needed was addressed by the Council. There is no change in the need for a sewer hookup in this plan than from the 1990 plan. Also, since the building that is currently on the property is a duplex, and the new buildings will be t\No condominiums, there is no increase in the number of units since the current structure was built. Of coarse we will comply wrth what the building code requires regarding sewer hookups. All reqUIred retalnin9 walls will be deSigned by an appropriate expert to Insure their safety. A soils engineer will deSign the drainage system to ensure proper drainage. This is commonly done at the permit stage. The CounCil expressed the opinion that the southwest like style IS a complete departure from the Frank Lloyd Wright look of the 1990 plan, thus IS an inappropriate style and should be changed. In fact, there is an adobe home across the street and there many Sparllsh style homes In old Tiburon. In response to past recommendations we changed our 1990 plan to look less modern, more western and charming by eliminating copper planters on decks and rooftop, a modern copper peaked stair turret With a skylight 11 feet above the roof line, eliminated a long multl- Window skylight 4.5 feet above the roofline, reduced glaZlng, changed railings to more traditional ones, added natural logs under decks, changed doors to natural wood. We do not feei a southwest style IS a complete departure since Frank Lloyd Wrlghfs style IS famous for being strongly based on and extremely Similar to southwest style. However, we WIll essentially eliminate the southwest !ook by replaCing the most obVIOUS south..yest design features. We will eliminate logs that are the round, southwest ~ snape and Instead use square beams. We Will eliminate the log treilis over the family room deck and the half logs "it'- between the WIndows. We've changed the coior from a light cream color to a darker earth tone color to blend In more With the house next door. The WIndow frame and munlons we will change to a very dark blue and the light blue trim we WIll change to natural wood color. We Will eliminate the wood handra,ls on the deck ra.lings. As in the 1990 des.gn, deck railings wliI remain oxidized copper color. As mentioned above, the previous turret had an EXIDBIT NO. "3 ..---.--..-.------," "- ,- (-, 1': elevation 11 feet above the roofline and had a skylight, we will change this turret to being 6 feet above the roofline -t. and recess the skylight 3 feet from the top of the turret. This will eliminate any possible reflection that might come D\ from the glass skylight, and will almost entirely eliminate direct sunlight on the glass, 5.,.0311 square openings above the skylight will be provided for drainage. The chimney will, according to code, remain a safe distance above the skylight. On the north residence, the blue trim will change to natural wood. The oxidized copper collar on the top of the -4J...- dormer windows is not a change. There were numerous copper accents on this building, including dormer window '1"'"'" tops. The shape of the dormer top does not allow rt to be covered in slate, however we will assure that the 'coppe~ treatment will be oxidized patina and not shiny. This treatment will apply to any 'coppe~ treatment in either home. We have tried, in some cases without a cleany defined directive from the Council, to compromise on the issues the Council addresed in the October 4th meeting, although, in some cases rt was not clear if the opinions expressed were unanimous. We hope you'll be able to give us your decision as to which of our last two designs best meets with your approval. . Thank you, Dave and Diane Williams adden: Samples of terra blue, for the south residence window frames, and Benjamin Moore 31E 1117 for the brown stucco color have been submitted. Representations of the retaining walls and the outer fence have also been submitted. --,_-...:--..--------_._~~~ ..:......~- .- --, Carruthers Land surveyin:~ P.O. Box 6243 San Rafael, CA 94903 October 3, 1995 David and Diane williams 1860 Centro West Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Williams, I have completed the survey of the property at 1860 Centro West Street in Tiburon, CA as you have requested. I have prepared a Record of Survey plat that is being recorded by the County of Marin. The following is a historical synopsis of your boundary: 1890 Your property was first surveyed in the 1890's and shown as Lot 53 and Lot 54 on unrecorded Map of Lyford's Hygeia. 1945 A title search reveals your property being conveyed by deed, not map, which is the current procedure. 1968 Roemer and Estes, License Land Surveyors, surveyed Lot 19 to 24 and Lots 51 and 52, of the above unrecorded map, which adjoins your boundary on the southeast and southwest. This survey is recorded in 2 PM 83. The Parcel Map shows that the survey retraced an original deed recorded in 1958 in (1199 OR 177) by the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co. to determine the boundary. 1971 Hool & Lockett, Licensed Land Surveyors, surveyed Lots 58 to 61, of the above unrecorded map, for a Parcel Map. This survey is four lots to the north of your property and recorded in 6 PM 40. 1981 W. O. Lockett, Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, surveyed Lot 53 and Lot 54, which is your property. During his survey he found the survey monuments set by the parcel map recorded in 1968, he used this to establish your the southeasterly and southwesterly boundary. He used his 1971 survey to establish your northwesterly and northeasterly boundaries. 1995 Jacobs Land Surveying conducted a survey of Parcel Three and Parcel Four of 2 PM 83(1968 survey). During his survey he uncovered the survey monuments set in the 1968 survey and the 1981 survey. He held the above surveys and remonumented the parcels. The map is recorded under 33 OS 90. 1995 I retraced the above mentions deeds and maps. evidence from all of the above surveys and based my resolution upon that evidence. I remonumented your a Record of Survey plat with the County of Marin. I uncovered boundary property and filed Respectfully yours, :~'nc(:.- C~ Ct/VtL~:] Linda A. Carruthers P.L.S. EXHIBIT NO.!:L. - - '" . >--~~~-_._-- ---- r ~ -J c _u ~~u~-~._-_._-~--- C~ 10(11'. ~ .J...~ 'i // . ~::rl'r J October 16, 1995 To Tiburon Town Council, We'd like to further clarify and explain our suggested compromises to our 1995 plan, and also provide you with some more of the information which you requested at or after the October 4 meeting. We have relied upon your 'design review' concerns regarding our revisions of the 1990 plans to bring you the further compromises that you have for your consideration today. Two council members mentioned the Southwest style as being negative, one of whom, C. Nygren. stated she wouid like to see it toned down. To make the south residence fit in more with the Callister building next door, we will change the color to earth tone and a much darker hue. The light 9reen front door and dark green trim of the 1990 plan we have made natural colored wood. The darker blue color we submitted with our letter of October 10th we will confine to the window frames and munions and will not use the color on any trim, We will change all blue trim to natural wood color. The large planters of the 1990 plan that were made of copper are eliminated. Much more unobtrusive accents of copper are used, and they are all oxidized copper color and are not shiny. On the north residence we will eliminate the blue trim and' use natural wood color instead, As on the south residence, all references to 'copper accents will be oxidized copper and not shiny. Our landscape plan included some trees that were noted to not be on a list of drought tolerant plants approved by the MMWD, and we were asked to refer to this list for our plant choices, We have obtained this list from the Town and have agreed to delete three of the coastal redwoods and replace the others with an alder variety (as per our letter to Jayni, we will use the Italian Alder tree that is specifically listed as we have realized that the Alnus rhombiflora can grow to be very large). The trees that we now propose are of the same drought tolerant tolerance as their species represented on this list As C, Nygren states that pine trees are not allowed, the Council should note that 21 pine trees are on the MMWD list we obtained from the town. By way of giving our assurance that the drainage system and all retaining walls will be to code and safe to protect downhill neighbors, please refer to Dennis Furby's letter to support this statement. His letter refers to the current landscape plan subm.ttd September 26. This plan shows the height of all retaining walls ciearty marked at several representative locations and also ciearty indicates the changes in finished grade of the site. I am told by the engineer that he estimates that the project would have a balanced cut and fill. As the height of some of the retaining walls exceed six feet, we will amend that plan by lowering any retaining walls within the setback area to be no higher than 6 feet Please note on the plans submitted September 26 that the 6 toot high fence is clearty marked on eNery property line border in which it exists, this being every boundary line of the lot except the west border of the north residence up to the four foot fence between the residences. Please note that this tour foot fence is of the same type as the six foot fence and is not wood. We have provided an exact (detailed) picture of the fence and will also provide a scale drawing as requested. The location of all lighting is c1earty depicted on the plans submitted September 26, and it is specified that all lights, except for the pool lights, are building mounted or mounted on the beams supporting the dnveway and pointed down to light the front walkway. Only lighting that is necessary to light exterior doorways and walkways for safety is used. We would like to further specify that all lights will be low-voltage, accept a maximum of 75 watts, have glare control, and be down lights or recessed can lighting. Pool lights are underwater and are pointed away from the neighbor to the south. In reference to the letter of January 25, 1991 from the town engineers office - the distance (in both the 1990 plan and the current plan) between the garage door of the north residence and the existing edge of the road pavement is incorrectly depicted on the engineers drawing. The actual distance (in both plans) is 30 feet, more than the engineers recommended 22 feet A car parked in the dnveway would leave approximately 10 feet of visual space for someone exiting from the 1844 address dnveway to see an approaching car. This is fIVe times the 2 teet tor sight distance recommended by Mr. Bala. Also, please refer to a memorandum wntten on January 31,1991 by David M. Hutton, Police Sergeant, who was asked by the town to investigate this concern. We Sincerely hope the Council appreciates the effort we have made to overly comply With our part at the agreement and present changes that would be improvements and would not offend. Thank you, C' ~ /J) ~ J; ~~~"'v'_ ........ .'. /t't.....l4A...'Oi":.c.. /1...' ,(~ ("~?'~"'T':~ Dave and Diane Williams H:1 \~'''; \:-='"-:'-"" ""_IJ _...... 11...,]_~~ a3^1303~ S66t 9 l 100 EXIDBIT NO. 5' OOl'ldOT:ii\30 AJJNnl'lVlOO ,,0 IN:VW:!'fc50 NCl:lnsLL:lO NMCL Q0~ ~-(' '?~ ,0\'1. '- '0. ~\ __\ \ J "v.\\~ ~"",- ..(,o~. '0 eei.\\'i~ ~(\~('I r--. ( . r, October 16. 1995 966.1 David and Diane Williams 1860 Centro West Tiburon, CA 94920 .~. ",--.'1 ----, . .,',TV i _.i-. Subject: Soil Engineering Review Proposed Landscaping Plan 1860 Centro West, Tiburon, California -- ~ ::',.;=:hT Dear Mr, and Mrs. Williams: OCT 1 8 1995 RE CEIVED iOES1GN REVIEW nus letter documents my review of the proposed landscaping plan for the plarmed new duplex residences at 1860 Centro West. Tiburon, California. I am currently performing a soil investigation for this project as outlined in my Professional Services Agreement dated August 23. 1995. I perfonned the subsurface exploration consisting of four test borings. two in each building area. on September 7, 1995. and have perfonned preliminary soil engineering evaluations for foundations and retaining wall design parameters: these were documented in an infonnal memo transmitted on September 15, 1995. The results of my soil investigation along with detailed recommendations will be summarized in a fonnal repon in the near future. In the meantime, 1 have been asked to review and comment on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed landscaping plan (sheet 1 dated 9/1/95) prepared by Heiser and Associates. Inc" Architecture and Planning. The planned project involves constructing two separate duplex residences on the hillside site downslope from Centro West The existing single-family residence occupying the site will be demolished. The site slopes downhill to the west at an average inclination of approximately 2-112:1 (horizontal to vertical), with stone retaining walls creating level terraces. The surface contains moderately dense grass vegetation and scattered large to moderate-sized trees around the perimeter. Current surface drainage is primarily the natural surface water runoff over the slope although a small drainage bench along the west propeny line divertS some of the water funher to the nOM. There are currently no indications of surface erosion. sloughing or other fonns of slope instability nor any adverse concentrations of surface water runoff. The four auger test borings encountered relatively hard rock within one to three feet of the existing ground surface. and the relatively light portable drilling equipment encountered "refusal" in moderately hard and moderately strong sandstone/shale rock. The planned landscaping will include construction of a series of curved and straight retaining walls varying from approximately two to nine feet high to create level terraced lawn and patio areas downslope from the u ~ ~,"7~ ..,.,. :mIBIT NO 'I' . _~'i ,~ ..C\ __\1' ,~u' ,,,'0.E~ . ," ,.,. "L'''' ol..)\\. ....' ",\0 ~{.;. (,i'\.: ~ ~i"\.\' ~...;'t.- \l.('I.~~~~. Q'b~:" ~~"'!--' l! ..... ~~ 'c.-"" ~:,,\~ ~.~. ....tot<'. 0-:>- .~~... .. ,:Ii.. " \. ..._"'1..> .:.,\', ),~.':o" '. David and Diane Williams October 16. 1995 Page 2 r residences. The specific design of these retaining walls has not been completed but I understand they may consist of either treated timber lagging supponed by steel I-beams anchored in concrete piers. or a segmental type retaining wall such as Versa-Lok consisting of interlocking pre-cast concrete units laterally tied into the compacted backfill with reinforced geogrids. The results of my soil investigation and my previous experience with similar projects in the site vicinity lead me to conclude that the planned retaining walls are both feasible and appropriate for developing the landscaping on the hillside site. Either wall type is feasible and can be easily constructed with minimal disturbance to the surrounding areas. Further. these retaining walls and resulting landscaped terraces will assist in controlling and collecting surface water runoff on the hillside. Upon completion of the project, all surface water runoff will be collected in drain inlets and downspout leaders which discharge further downslope. The drainage discharges can be through either a system of capped perforated pipes which will unifonnly dissipate the discharge across the west propeny line similar to what now occurs as natural surface water runoff. or through an underground line which would discharge directly into the street further downhill provided that sufficient alignments and/or easements are available for locating the pipes. Surface drainage improvements will be required for the project regardless of the landscaping plan. and the specific recommendations will be pan of my final report. I trust this provides the information required at this time. Should you or others have further questions regarding the soil engineering aspects of this project. please call me, Yours very truly. D, H. FURBY. PE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT ~W~ Dcnnis H. Furby Geotechnical Engineer-326 DHFlbr 3 copies submitted cc: Richard Heglund. Architect ..~.--.. (~:;S;?~*"~S~~;> i;;~'f~~~~;~ -. -.'.-.., ~.=- -.:. ,j :;= "ELF.eN ... ,-.-.~.,-: '~~7NT CF COMMl.:NlTY L.E'iELCF'vlENT OCT 1 8 1995 I_RECEIVED I OJ::SIGN ~l=V'~'" - . (....'., ,.- { " TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 31 JAN 91 TO: STEVEN G. LEWIS. CAPT AIN FROM: DAVID M. HUTTON, SERGEANT SUBJECT: PLANNING REVIEW FOR 1844/1860 CENTRO WEST On Wednesday, January 30th, 1991 at 1330 hours, I responded to the area of 1844 and 1860 Centro West for the purpose of reviewing the proposed job sight for the improvements listed on the attached plans. In my estimation, the proposed work to be done on the driveway improvement for 1844 Centro West and the improvement of the duplex at 1860 Centro West will not hamper sight lines, sight distances or limit sight in any way. Also, the improvement of the driveway at 1844 Centro West will not detract from roadway width. .:(' "- j)~ffi/~ DAVID M. HUTTON, POLICE SERGEANT EXHIBIT No.i . ..:_.=:..j _.:.- -.:.~..=.'(~ ':,=::::~.~'iLNlr{ =:i=:..:F\lS;\IT OCT 1 8 1995 RECEIVED DESIGN REVIEW . ..~-.(~'- .>,~,'&\{ :1" :s~~ ."".~CD ~jr~ ~'--... ';':+LC '~~f~'~ \;....,.;D) ~~~;:,., ::"~:i.~ t -=~*'.- ~'ci\C") , .~~j'=-:-- ",.CD '~t7rn -I~ ... EXHIBIT NO. 8 , c . - - , -f I ':.I j Q :;.nmZI I I .. : ~~. ~_I '0 -'!l'Q ::I "1'01-01 e ~~ a;:~ =.o...~ '___ s.:' ~ ~ :;1' ~ ::r c :. AI 0'1 0\ 00 -~~g~ ~ ii-::I 3 ~r- - . -. lU "" N ;;>2,P~I~ JJ:.. !! -<... ~. 'j -I 'I;::; S' ~ 6- ~ _ >();.(I '" ::::I $; c: _(pO , ...... :.. ~o-2 >/ =1;:; x ~ -:l::l 110 o..z ~ "'1_ _. ::I 'JO ::I... ..... _.I N _ a' ~ 5'~tlll>1 '0/>101> 0/>10 > 01>/01 ~j Co :- E! ~;;;: >, >1-- > > TI; ;;~~.~.:q I I II r;::- 'JQ - c.. ~ '-' ~3.~~': I II <l~:;: ... ' ::I'" :"'1:NfNINi_IWI ~'NI..t..I,-,.::.. W v...to. ~::::. ~ I- f iH ~ ~Ii ~~1611~!~i;; o':-"'Si~I:~I'::I~ ;;I~~ ~Ii~. :::r 0.. ~ :::t :::t I is Q, =-o..~_. ~ 2i''''''~'lT ' -'0.;r"1 I I II '"' I ~~'a~~t ~< ,.., . ~ , ~,' . 1 I I ~ 5'.;;'! 5.~3".:11 1-' 1 --,- --._1_1 -;:'0._1 ....~::l """'"'0;:::1-.000_ OI'Of'VI_!f'V_,.... '< :=.; . =: '" ~ :;:>1 ....1'...' '-"I..... 0 81001 \Q va,.., ~ 0\1 ="( r- t") ~H~lllillll /1 g.8'!.! "'";;: =..:. I _ , ---- -.-- -':::1 ~ ~ '" "'T'I ~. ..,'" ~ - r- '" ~ '" ~ " ~ '" = ~ 5.==: ..i,f'V f'V ~/~ f'V f'V ":/,,,:,,,:(,,:,/,,:, ~x~x~~":x":'xr-.; ff - x - x - x - :.<:/-/x '" f'V1 /f'V 1N1 f'V1 f'V Ie ~!OIN a ~lCJN!al~ ;;' . ~ J. I! 3 ,) '9 ~ '?-~ ." ff ~ ,;~ ~~ , i~ i. h s ~ ~ ~ ~ I) ) i ~ .:] ~'9~ :;:." ~~ ~. .... ~ ... ~~. ~ ~ ..... ... ::: ... " ~... Q. ~,,;:'~ ~... ~:: ~ .... ~... ... "'lo 3' ... ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ -;{ --I"-~ '(J'" "1 ,) '1' " il!i;' :;,;' ""~;l~,,,; !!~ , r' r _'. .J~-"~-- I - ., - ;:c ~ - ... ,;, ;:: - ."., ~.;. '-' /0 I :--1 ~ I ~..j::J ~~ Z " ?"~ ~ .., 1_.-'; < 't ,"1 ... . <"~I - . -):i ''';';I_~ ~. . ~~ " '" ~, ." , r- .-...... ~/;/'::,' ;- \f;il -< \! ..., 7"' '..... ~ - .-'\-;. -'~I /j' ..... ;~j. .~ ~II:; _- ~ ~ o o -i 'l\'r C.11 fO l\o itn ..:=.;-: , ., - J - -='::: Ji~"~~ ...<;!I :;- -1 =- '""~-- 11~1 * ~ -: !;?{ ,.../ C\ ~I "I Cl ::< ' ~ > V\ ~ ~ '" 2.~-- ,-/ - .." I " 3/'" - ~ il _1M ~I= -I..::.. 'J:J 1- - A.,_.... .." Ie> ,Ii;; ::: d I> *, e ;:; I .., ~ I ~ ~I "'I ;('1 iJl~~ - '"::I - -l : ~ I 0 ~ I ~ ,....-.-.~_h ==d ==d @ ==d =j ==j ==< ~, I~i r--r- I 1 1 I Ix '..I> I_I *i-;;; ';::.....: ::tl ,Xl . i~1 ~ 'f"". ~ ~:> :; [ . L.__~? 1 " I 1 I J: :~:~:::~:~~ I~' , 'I ~[ " i1! i~; ,5i!'" ,'. ~-::!J j l ~ j! f i? if r~ ~! l=l , I ' ~113 1:1 : ;1 ""11 = =:11 =II <=if =9 ~ ., - 3 ;<: - ~. .; 1_ - ;::c = Co =" ~ ~.:; ~ ~ ~ ;;"1:: ~ > *11 I'~ ;; ~ - oJ' ~ " /"'~-c :) ~~ ~> :.l ~ ~. ~. ::: = =.~ "" = :::~ .:;-'" ,., :) , - ~~ "" = ~ g :::..:;: 11< 1 t:- -, - - 1', :> ; t'l "-: C'l <:>- g? ~ ~~- c _ 'l: o I _ ~ ~ ~ :;. 0 v; = c:: II<: (rJ '" ... ...; ... - :> = ;0 > ~ ~ .' ,- ; ~ ;; c - v; > = ;0 :.i: > " c ~ > - ;; ,-; ,.. " ~ - ::;; (rJ CJJ = Z - - ;0 " - '" > '" 0 - ~ :0 ,., ----'- ~ - -< -. {~- ~ 1 1- ,'*'" ~,_ E '~ E ~ 3 ;: ~;. " ;:; ~ - '" ~ I '" o - or Co ,.,. ,:i" "" ~ ., Co !' II I. . t iJ' I 1\ (i..., i,,',~_ , ( . -' ~ .. ! ~',,~ < I /.j;., i' ,..... ~. .' -"--- IN THE TRADITION OF THE GREAT CRAFTSMEN OF THE PAST, Nowell's presents a selection of our Craftsman-style copper lanterns. We make them as we have always made reproductions of traditional lights: just as the originals were made. v The creators of the styles that came to be known as Mission, Craftsman, or Arts & Crafts were men and women who allowed no compromises. Nor do we. i 1 \ ~__, or..... -::""_ . - - J WALL MOUNT .====- f ~ ;" - A <;t t ' LloU: f\..j No,~~ - EXHIBIT NO. 9 "- 4 k- ..,-, _._ "'--0"-' ...;."': ._, ..~~ --,; ..;....;. ~-' EXHIBIT NO. "- 1. THE GATE 5 - WG-1 2. THE TOMALES - WT-2 3. THE MUIR WOODS - WM-3 4. THE LAGUNITAS - WL-4 5. THE REDWOOD CREEK - WR-5 ~...... ,.. -~ r:- ~ ,'" -, ,~.- ;- ( (~ + 'r .....~ ~ ~ ';.. ( 1/1: I, L , II, ,;c ~ ~ l" WALL MOUNT 1. THE GATE 5. WG.1 2. THE TOMALES - WT-2 3. THE MUIR WOODS. WM-3 4. THE LAGUNITAS - WL-4 5. THE REDWOOD CREEK - WR-5 4, BODY 4',," Sa, ROOF S'I:" Sa. HEIGHT 11" PROJECTION 6,,' CEILING MOUNT 1. THE TAMAL?AIS - CT.1 2. THE OLD MILL - CO-2 3. THE RACCOON STRAITS - CS-3 4. THE BELVEDERE - C8-4 5. THE ROSS - CR-S r I ---- CANOPY S" Sa. 'I,' DEE? o 2. BODY BOTTOM, BODY TOP ROOF HEIGHT 7' Sa, 4" Sa. 9" Sa. 9" ~ ~. ,,-:c.; I d ~ ;, l C~ 2. BODY S%" Sa. HEIGHT 1 0"," S, BODYWlD11-I 12" RCOFWlD11-I 14' HEIGHT 14"," PROJECTlON 3',," o IIII11111 I 4. BODY ROOF HEIGHT 8';" Sa. 101/:- Sa. 101/:.- " t: o 1\\1 w w 3. BODY ROCF HEIGHT 4~. Sa. S';" Sa. 12\-1' 1. BODY S;'," Sa. HEIGHT 7" :i / w 3. BODY 7'1.' x S'Io" ROOF 9<;," x 8" HEIGHT 13'1<' PROJECTION 10'1.' S, BODY ROOF HEIGHT 7" Sa. 1 01/" ~ Sa. 111~. :eJ 1. BODY 90T7CM BODY TOP ROOF HEIGHT 8' Sa. 10'!,. Sa. 20" Sa. 12~1:t. 'N~ OWELLS, INC. P,Q. Box 295, 490 Gate 5 Road, Sausalito, CA 94966" (415) 332,4933 ~!' =---- 'I ), 'Ii; , . \. ~''''~ ,~..- ~;; i~,.~i , l I! y 431 KENSINGTON LAMP Height 24 in. 433 CHELSEA LAMP Height 19 in. x. :" ~ .... 'n...n........~aa.n, I I .. L\' 'II ',. ,,' ",: ) l'/.~/,;::. 431H KENSINGTON PENDANT Height 18 in. I i 41' INTEillOR CAB LAMP Height13 in. t l 427 BROUGHAM k 1,( ./ :~; J/; ,'''''- ',>("""/I"'::/t.,,-' i . .' 1_ _.~# 432 Height KENSINGTON PASSAGE LAMP 18'/2 in, .135 CHELSEA PENDANT Helgnt 12'/2 in. 441 LONGCHAMPS i I'~ , /~ ';..- ';" ~', -, ._......,,....- -. 1../' ~-: ''- }1 'It *s - "5" ,- \ <.. ~ I"'" \)~: ,'.";~ - , I \.. 7\- -j t r"'{- ,\1 .~ ~ II Lu, ck 'f 7 /:; (/ To. II , I I', -/ L- ), Cf Y. , }/y~ !.~Vvl ~I/ Q r ,'"' EXHIBIT No.1 () )1 0.. ',( i YV1 q >>t WCA fk - 7 S- l.j'/ flA!1 'i G /1 [J ,'elf... ,~ 'J "-~ j i ! I, r. ./'- ...",,> ~'~-" , j ,:.. '" '-- , ' .... Soah~, Ekt.lLQ~ EXHIBIT NO, 10 -