Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2009-09-02 (2)z'. TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 2, 2009 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department 166 Rock Hill Road; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling; Willem and Julia Robberts, Owners/Applicants; Thomas and Ann Lacey, Appellants; File #709052; Assessor's Parcel No. 039-151-22 (4p, ? PROJECT DATA Address: Owner: Applicants: Appellants: Assessor's Parcel Number: File Number: 166 Rock Hill Road Willem & Julia Robberts Michael Heckmann (Architect) Thomas and Ann Lacey 039-151-22 709052 Lot Size: 23,660 Square Feet Zoning: RO-2 (Single-Family Residential Open) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Flood Zone: X (outside special flood hazard zone) BACKGROUND On August 6, 2009, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a new single-family dwelling at 166 Rock Hill Road. The neighboring residents at 168 Rock Hill Road (Thomas and Ann Lacey, hereinafter referred to as "appellants") have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requested approval for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. Currently a one-story house occupies the property and would be demolished as part of this application. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7 The project proposes the construction of a two-level dwelling. The main level of the new home would include one bedroom, a three-car garage, laundry room, storage room, office/library, dinning room, living room, kitchen and family room. A master bedroom suite and two additional bedrooms would be located on the upper level. The house would have a contemporary exterior design and would be finished with a combination of tan stucco, dark walnut wood trim and stone veneer, with a dark painted standing seam metal roof. Two six foot (6) tall retaining walls were originally proposed to be constructed along the southern side of the property. The final project approval included one four foot (4) tall retaining wall on the southern side of the house and two five foot (5) tall retaining walls to the rear of the house to establish a level lawn space and a location for a swimming pool. The proposed home would cover 3,503 square feet (14.8%) of the lot, which is less than the 15.0% maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone. The house would have a gross floor area of 4,357 square feet, which is below the 4,366 square foot maximum floor area guideline for a lot of this size. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board first reviewed this application at the June 18, 2009 meeting. At that meeting, various neighboring property owners along Rock Hill Road raised concerns that the contemporary design of the proposed new home would not be compatible with the surrounding area and would create an unfavorable visual prominence from the roadway. The appellants expressed concern that the new second story would impact water views of Richardson Bay and Sausalito. The downhill neighboring property owner at 160 Rock Hill Road was concerned that the new retaining walls would loom over their property, the windows facing downhill would create excessive glare, and the new swimming pool would create a privacy impact. The Board agreed with some of the neighbors' concerns. The Board requested that the amount of glass facing downhill and the size of the proposed retaining walls on the southern side of the property be scaled back. The Board suggested that the applicants explore the option of relocating or redesigning the swimming pool. The consensus of the Board was that the second story of the home would not substantially impact views from the appellants' residence and that the architectural style of the proposed home was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Board reviewed the proposal, but continued the project to give the applicant time to revise the proposal and to allow for additional dialogue between the neighbors. The applicants submitted a revised project design that was reviewed by the Board at the July 16, 2009 meeting. The amount of glass on the south elevation of the house was reduced and the southern retaining walls were modified into a series of curved walls separated by landscaping. The swimming pool was relocated approximately 10 feet further away from the side property line. The basic footprint and design of the proposed house were unchanged. A the July 16 meeting, the appellants again objected to the potential view blockage caused by the proposed house and the downhill neighbors continued to object to the size and location of the retaining walls on the southern side of the property. The Design Review Board again agreed that TowN or. Ti e o A 2 OF the general design of the house was appropriate, but that the proximity of the retaining walls to neighbors, the height of the walls, and the removal of existing vegetation necessary to construct the walls were still substantial concerns. The application was again continued, with the applicants given direction to move the walls back and/or reduce their height and provide more landscaping in the area around the walls. The applicants were requested to provide more information on the materials and install story poles for the walls. The applicants subsequently submitted revised plans for the retaining walls on the site. The two retaining walls along the southern side of the site were replaced by a single, 4 foot tall retaining wall that would be set back 12 to 17 feet from the side property line. To replace the level lawn area previously proposed on the south side of the house, the applicants proposed to move the swimming pool further to the rear and establish a level lawn space between the house and the pool. Two five foot (5') tall retaining walls would be constructed behind the new pool location. At the August 6, 2009 Design Review Board meeting, the appellants once again objected to the potential view blockage, but the downhill neighbor conditionally supported the revised project design. The Design Review Board supported the revised project, noting that the applicants had addressed all of the Board's concerns and worked with the downhill neighbors to resolve the issues with the retaining walls. The Board noted that the only potential view impacts to the appellants' home would be to the panoramic view from an upstairs master bedroom, while the proposed house design would improve views from the downstairs primary living areas. The owners of the neighboring uphill home at 168 Rock Hill Road, Thomas and Ann Lacey, subsequently filed a timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1). BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are two (2) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The proposed house would substantially block views from the master bedroom and family room of the appellants' home and can be easily solved by minor changes to the design and location of the proposed structure. Staff Response: The following portions of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the potential view impacts of the proposed house on the appellants' home: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 7 • Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling (e.g. living room, dining room, family room, great room, kitchen, and decks associated with these rooms) than for the less actively used areas of a dwelling (e.g. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den)." i pQy~r"O-! ~ Yrr3.a" ~ ! jir~'4'""ie-M I~r il(. s^' F 1 a.~5.*''V !9~.' '+l 9r~ "i^d„'~ ~~y °-^~L~',`•' `v v c +.I;d~~a The second story of the proposed house would extend into a portion of the view from the appellant's upstairs master bedroom. The first story of the proposed house would be would be set further back from the front property line than the existing house on the site, which would open up additional views from the downstairs primary living areas of the appellants' home. • Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) of the Guidelines states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of [a] view, then foreground, then middleground." ' The proposed house would not cut into the horizon line and would intrude slightly into the foreground view from the master bedroom of the appellants' home. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 Goal 3, Principle 7 (C) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of [the] center of view [is] more damaging that blockage of [the] side of view." 6 The proposed house would intrude into a small portion of the left side of the view from the master bedroom of the appellants' home. • Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well known landmarks." r y S i `rte r r-~ e r The second story of the proposed house would block a small portion of the view of the Sausalito waterline from the master bedroom of the appellants' home and would intrude into a small portion of the view of Richardson Bay. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 7 Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." 4. The appellants' home has relatively wide panoramic view toward Richardson Bay and Sausalito from the upstairs master bedroom. The second story of the proposed house would intrude into a small portion of the left side of this view. A similar view from the downstairs primary living areas of the appellants' home would be expanded, as the first story of the proposed house would be set further back from the front property line than the existing house on the site. At the July 16, 2009 meeting, Jim Malott, a local architect representing the appellants, suggested moving and slightly rotating the location of the proposed house to preserve the appellants' view corridor. The applicant's architect indicated that the suggested changes would increase the amount of grading necessary to construct the proposed house and would result in tall retaining walls on the uphill side of the house. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed house was properly sited and did not need to be moved. The Board also determined that the views gained by setting the first floor of the house farther back from the front property line than the existing house would exceed any views lost as a result of the new structure. Ground #2: The proposed house violates a number of the principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines. Staff Response: In addition to the view blockage concerns described above, Mr. Malott has also contended that the proposed house design would be inconsistent with other principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines. He objected to the visual mass and bulk of the house, particularly the front entry, and stated that placing the house on a built-up "platform" of earth would contribute to this problem. He also objected to the amount of glass around the exterior of the house and the visibility of the large retaining walls that were originally requested on the southern portion of the site. The Design Review Board concluded that the contemporary design of the house was appropriate for the site and consistent with the mixture of various house designs found in the surrounding neighborhood. The Board determined that the use of wood, glass, stone, and stucco materials would help the house blend into the hillside. The Board determined that the front entry was a TOWN OF TIBURON RAGE 6 OF 7 fundamental part of the project design and that the "platform" was an existing condition of the site. The Board shared the concerns about the excessive size of the windows, particularly on the southern side of the house, and the visibility of the originally proposed retaining walls, but supported the revised project design that reduced the window area on the south side of the house and relocated the larger retaining walls to the less visible rear portion of the property. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board properly followed the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of this project. The proposed house would improve the views from the primary living areas of the appellants' residence and would only intrude slightly into the side of a panoramic view from an upstairs bedroom. The Board detennined that the house design was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and required changes to be made to the windows and retaining walls of the project to lessen impacts on neighboring homes. RECOMMENDATION 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 adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated June 18, 2009 4. Design Review Board Staff report dated July 16, 2009 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated August 6, 2009 6. Minutes of the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 7. Minutes of the July 16, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 8. Minutes of the August 6, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 9. Letter from Jim Malott, dated July 8, 2009 10. Letter from David and Jean Pelfini, dated July 9, 2009 11. Letter from Suzanne and Harry Smith, dated July 12, 2009 12. Letter from Tad and Ann Lacey, dated July 15, 2009 13. Letter from David and Jean Pelfini, dated July 24, 2009 14. Letter from Ian and Julie Pearson, dated August 6, 2009 15. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager 'shared',AdministrationJown Council\staff reports\2009\September 2 Drafts\ 166 Rock Hill Road appeal report.doc TOWN OF TZBURON RAGE 7 OF 7 TOWN COUNCIL LATE MAIL # ~~-MEETING DATE ~ ~ © 9 166 Rock Hill Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 26th August 2009 Members of Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Town Council s. r AUG 2 6 2009 TM 11N CAFTIBURON Re: Design Review Board Approval #709052. 166 Rock Hill Drive, Tiburon. We are the homeowners of the above property, which recently received a unanimous approval by the Design Review Board for the construction of a new single family dwelling. We understand that an appeal has been filed by Mr & Mrs Lacey, to which we would like to respond. In developing our plans we held several discussions with a number of our neighbors to take into account their views in planning our home, including those of Mr & Mrs Lacey. The consideration that we have provided to our neighbors in this process has been extensive. In consideration of Mr & Mrs Lacey's concerns, and those of others, before we even began the design process we made a number of significant compromises to ensure that the project would accommodate all reasonable goals. In particular; Our plans have always been developed with an objective of safeguarding the Lacey's views and creating a project that respects our neighborhood and works within the Hillside Guidelines. From the street, we have set back the house an additional 10 feet from the current building, which will provide a much improved view to the Lacey's from their primary living space and ceremonial rooms. In doing so we have compromised our own primary view corridor. • The roof height of the proposed new construction has been reduced from the existing structure in the area in front of the Lacey's primary living space. The existing roof height of 13ft 6 inches will be reduced to I I ft at the most critical view area. • We have included a significant amount of landscape screening to ensure privacy between both neighboring properties. We will be planting specimen-size landscaping at the beginning of construction to ensure screening and privacy early on. This is not the most cost effective approach for us but we are happy to do this to ensure privacy to our neighbors. • We have eliminated a bedroom window from the rear elevation to ensure continued privacy for the Lacey's. We are setting back the retaining wall between the downhill neighbours' (the Pelfini's) property to 16 feet from our own property line to accommodate the Pelfini's (It should be noted that the Pelfini's home doesn't conform with the Town's existing setback requirements and encroaches into the required setback. However, at the request of the Pelfini's and the Design Review Board we set back our retaining wall and provided additional landscaping to accommodate the proximity of the Pelfini's bedroom to our property.). In addition, we have relocated the pool and our yard further back to the rear of the property against the open space affording them privacy for their master bedroom and outdoor living space. At the last DRB meeting, Chairman Chong commented that "the applicant had been more than generous to set the wall further back and give part of their yard to create some separation between the neighbors". These changes will be costly and will result in us losing our views that we initially planned from our pool and yard areas. The alleged view blockage to which the Lacey's refer only relates to a small area at the far extent of a wide panoramic view from their upstairs bedroom. Within this small area a portion of the new building will be visible and silhouetted against trees, not bay or landmark views. Very importantly and as pointed out by members of the DRB, the Lacey's objection relates to views from a non-ceremonial room, which is more than compensated for with vastly improved views from their main ceremonial rooms downstairs. The project has already been through a rigorous Design Review Board process. The specific objections that the Lacey's raise have already been discussed, at length, on three occasions. During this design development and review process, (1) we set back the front of the proposed home from where the existing home is, (2) we reduced the height of the proposed home from the height of our existing home and (3) we removed a bedroom window from our proposed home. At each of the DRB meetings, the members of the DRB considered the Lacey's objections and made it clear that the compromises we have made fully addressed the Lacey's concerns. We respect the process of making an appeal as this provides a safeguard against unlawful or egregious decisions. The appeal that the Lacey's have made is not based on either situation. We do not believe the changes the Lacey's are proposing are either necessary or reasonable and will have a very detrimental impact on our future home. We are not requesting any variances and have worked closely with Michael Heckmann and Pete Pederson to ensure that we have worked within the Town's hillside guidelines. In conclusion, we would like to reiterate the comments of the Design Review Board that "the applicant had done a good job of compromising, have answered all of the Board's concerns and worked with neighbors to resolve problems." - before issuing their unanimous approval for the project. With both of us having established businesses in Tiburon and our son starting school at a local Tiburon pre-school, we are clearly very invested in the Tiburon community. We welcome members of the Town Council to come and visit the property and invite you to see the proposal on site. Please feel free to visit the property at your convenience and walk through the gates around the whole site or contact us for a more comprehensive tour at (415) 789 5007. We thank you for your time and attention to this matter and look forward to presenting the merits of our new residence to you on September 2nd Yours faithfully, f Will & Julia Robberts TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL ~ IFS J AUG 17 2009 L,a ;i. APPELLANT Name: 1 Address: I b6 ?,ncAe_ N4-1 ~~2c vv Telephone: SlU $-+4 --1&* (work.) (S-4 --5016 (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: Date of Action: Acu% cxus i , --eg_05 4 AF Name of Applicant: V-I•.t. ctr~O ,too%.L-%Or Nature of Application: L-V 04'-~ "OVU& GROUNDS FOR APPEAL tt (Ach additional pages, if necessary) t POR. J.901 ~s % ~ Sam cam. ~~wa. wa its,> VAA._ Vk& ~CA t s . i4 tijw L&.A Last Day to File: l Date Received: Croo Fee Paid: *3w f Date of Hearing: January 2004 07 cZ/a~i 7 B3 I MAY 1 4 1009 TOWN OF TIBURON t` LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - --iii TYPE OF APPLICATION O Conditional Use Permit 38( Design Review (DRB) O Tentative Subdivision Map O Precise Development Plan O Secondary Dwelling Unit O Design Review (Staff level) O Final Subdivision Map O Variance O Zoning Amendment/Prezoning O Floor Area Exception O General Plan Amendment O Sign Permit O Change of Address O Tree Permit W 1 L1, J U L- Igo 1313? sp,1'"q APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: Ice G Ko G "I u.. L?-Ie.. - PARCEL NUMBER: 07)1- fri I - .22- OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: -PROPERTY SIZE: 2.~j, GeG o ZONING: F-0 - z. l Gt 4 fZ06k-41 fit, vw-. O Parcel Map O Lot Line Adjustment O Certificate of Compliance O Other CITY/STATE/ZIP`rI13UI6N CAS cI494 PHONE NUMBER: IAA - 8500"1 FAX APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CITY/STATE/ZIP FAX 14M r- 0% 2,= M ARCHITECT I C~~~1IC~I !~l 1~l MAILING ADDRESS: t ?•O /~!•N.-~ S~ / 't't l'a U k-b N,, C,,~► !4+0f LO o j- z YV,~ Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): 1FA 1 c7eWCOF,= I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees a i t ult from the third party challenge. *Signature: Date: 0 EXHIBIT NO. _Z-- L - -3 *Pe 4 wo *If other than owner, must have letter from owner f, t op t! DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR NEW RESIDENCE OR OTHER MAIN BUILC A ME U " E1 Wy 14 2009 I PL~P~~'alaJC~ ~l'vi~ic~N Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): Use of Site (example: single family residential, retail, office, service, etc.): Existing: 514G1_-V rAM I, ~j Rf-,,S &bttM atr Proposed: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED CALCULATED PER ZONE (if existing (reflects proposed building is to be construction) demolished) Yards (Setbacks from property line)(Section 1.05.25)* Front -2.4 - 7 ft. 3® ft. ft. ft. Rear ft. ~"ft. ft. ft. Right Side ft. ft. ft. ft. Left Side Cj . d ft. CJft. ft. Maximum Height (Section 5.06.07)* 12. d ft. ft. ft. ft. Lot Coverage (Section 5.06.08)' 2~ sq.ft. 3 056 sq.ft. . sq.ft. { ,~-ate sq.ft. . P Lot Coverage as C► ~ % Percent of Lot Area • % % Gross Floor 61A9 i 1 5e S 05 ' 11 - ~ ft 19r? 2 r 7 - ft ft ect on . t-1 2 ( .06) sq. . - J ft. sq. . sq. . sq. Net Floor Area (if office building) Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Section 5.08.??)" Number of Parking " _ aces s Spaces Provide spaces spaces spaces p "Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which may be viewed at the Town's website at www_tlburon.org/government/ OI tilt IZi ~E W Stil'Pl .MI NIA1 ;III I( \11()N FOK.M NI:~1 RI:SII ENVI' (W NIAI\ I i I J I I DI\(; 1200. F(~~~'N~~i i~~ti ~2ON 1 EXHIBIT NO. 2- P, 2- OF- I I MICHAEL D. HECKMANN AIA Architect Planner Robberts Residence 166 Rock Hill Drive -Tiburon, CA ~IU J U L -1 2009 qG DIVISION PROJECT REVISIONS JULY 1, 2009 Issues with uphill neighbor at 168 Rock Hill Drive 1. The DRB found that the location and height of the Robberts upper level was an appropriate solution. The minor side view blockage of an outlook from the neighbor's master bedroom, a secondary view room, was an acceptable design concept. 2. The minor view blockage from the neighbor's master bedroom was also considered a reasonable trade-off for the significant improvement of the view from the primary living areas such as the living room and dining room. 3. The window originally planned for the north wall of the Robberts' upstairs corner bedroom is deleted. Issues with downhill neighbor at 160 Rock Hill Drive 1. The amount of glass on the south elevations has been reduced by 32 sq. ft. This reduced any night time light spill that might be objectionable. 2. Another consideration is that the main south glass area is adjacent to the neighbor's entry garden which is mainly ornamental. Their main outside entertaining terrace is off the southeast corner of their house adjacent to their main living area. 3. In addition, all the rooms on the north side of the neighbor's house have no north-facing windows and so have no outlook to the Robberts' home as planned. 4. The extended flat lawn area of the new Robberts' home, with the planned landscaping, will further limit the majority of any night light to the south due to the vertical offset of the two areas. 5. No reflected light will occur from morning sun due to the southeast angle past the hills and trees in that direction. The afternoon light will have a limited window of possible reflection only in the winter when the sun angle is low and the double-glazed Low-E glass reduces that reflective ability to a minimal level. EXHIBIT N0. Z 120 Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel 415.435-2446 Fax 415435.2875 ` 6. The downhill retaining walls have been reduced in height and length and pulled away from the down hill neighbor's back yard area. The lower wall has gone from 140 If to 105 If (25% reduction) and has been reduced to a 42" height. The upper wall has gone from 115 If to 107 If and is 5' tall at its tallest point. The walls has a soft arcing layout that has been pulled away from the downhill neighbor by as much as 12'-0", reducing the lawn area in the side yard set back by nearly 400 sf (392sf). 7. The swimming pool has been moved approx. 10' farther away from the down hill neighbor. 8. The fence line has been pulled back to allow the walks and landscaping that has been installed on the Robberts property to remain. 9. Landscaping has been proposed that matches the existing screening to be installed at sizes that provide privacy between the two residences. 10. Layered plantings of shrubs and ground covers will screen and obscure the landscape terrace walls. EXHIBIT NO. 2- P q or- ll EXHIBIT N0. 2 tL PIP ke91Rq`"' r., s Z MAY 1 4 2009 tAH.IBIT N0. ?o -1 ,s MAY 1 4 X009 EXHIBIT N0. Z UP I i -i'i" t.)I.11) I t.).~1ti1) I`li()1`I 1.11 1 1\1 I IA( 42- METAL GUARDRAIL 4r:: 3 MAY 14 2009 N 1-4 NG D s10 EXHIBIT NO. Z- g 6 i= it 6'-0" DEER FENCE MAY 14 2009 EXHIBIT NO. 2- q or ~ I DOWNLIGHTING FX LUMINAIRE-- TS-20, TS-3 5, TS-5 0 12 SMOOTH, PRECISE I`'IOONLIGHTING Our trellisSolai-0, is CUrre.ntIN, the most advanced micro downlight available. Machined from aerospace grade aIuminuin alloy and finished with an indliStrial grade polyester powdercoat, tile 'I'S is buill to last. The mounting base swivels and pivots on nylon bushings, allowing 1-or smooth, precise aiming after installation. This fixture is an outdoor "track light" giving the exterior lighting designer a full range of previously interior only lighting effects. Deep cowling provides unsurpassed glare control, thereby avoiding hot +C T,- spots typical of most downlites. i r Because oi' its micro size and high intensity, the TS-20 is a natural I'01, moonlighting from Small trees and ,4; Nf dowillighting from medium size .;t 7 patio trees. Specify'1'S-50 for larger 4 , w specimens and controlled liglltiilg- ~ - 41 - { ` ARCHITECTURAL DOWNLIGHTING ACCENTS LANDSCAPE TRACK LIGHT „'iir~ iii. fi,fi; I i; ii ..'lit'•. i~~l:' i.` 5'.: I~..J t .r'1 T`'~ i~:~ji•r~~l Il. ~:~C' J. '.~`i:_I III;_ Note: This fixture is designed for downlighting only. 77 ti ,l 4 MAY 1 4 20OQs PI- AI\lNING DI'AC3I0"V! ~o h boo T~ EXHIBIT NO. Z Ts-10 s° ~s P 1 0 0 u vvali Ll nt Recessed wall luminaires - stainless steel Housing: ; ;~nslr~s;r,ci die gas' arc extruc:e-.1 a liminumi vil'a in'(.xval ~r;rirn`1 cornpartr*-icr,t. K/1-Duntirg tabs prcwiccd. Enclosure: Al s; it It ss stool taccplalc. r, thick. thick, temporocd glass, etc,-ied, (behind louvers). Faceplate secured by t~ovo (2) fiat socket heat, sta n ess s`eel, captive scre vs t`lreaaed into stainless steel inserts it the raous-ng casti-ig Ceit-nic-us h gn Temperature o-ring gasket for vvc-:athcr tight opc:ralion. Electrical: t_arnpho ccr. GX2:3 (13UV), 2-p ra, rated 75V%,, 600V. Bal;ast: Mtagnctic, HK available in 120!! or 277V - sp<)cify. Tl,rc;.,gh *irwc;: Maxim-,jrri c:f four (4) Nc. '2 AWG cc;ndoctois (plus grounc) suitacie for 7-11C:. Two ',A, knockou_s provided for' conduit. Finish: #4. brushed stainless stee . Stainless stee' requires regular cleaning and wa.ntenance, much IiKe household acpkances. tc m&nta,n a" luster and tv preve-it tarnishing or :he a0pearance of rust 'like stains U.L. ised, suitable fc-wet locations arc tot ir;stalhat cr wlthir 3 feet o' grouro. S.jitaole 'or all typos o' construction incluoing pcurcd a,nc.ret Type ncri-IC. P-c;;ecti;or class IP 64. Type: BEGA Product Project: Voltage: Color: Options: Modified: 6 MAY 14 2009 ~g PLANNING D-10ASION Recessed luminaires with stainless . steel faceplate with ntegral louvers and etched tE>raA)c;rcd t% ~ caass di"f,rsers. U.L. 'is':(d. Suitable fcr w:a LVlocat,c•is. IP 64. a Finish.. #4 brushed s:ainless steel. L rr:p Lun-i c;n A f3 C 2037P Rcce ssc.d )VV CF Iwir' 2p Ell 2n 12 ' . 3 4 H1B1T 1V Q BEGANS 1000 BEGA Way, Carpirtle,ia, CA 93013 [P] 805.684.0533 [F] 805-684-6682 ( r ( l ;hl 131 (,AAAJS iCC.'r TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board une 18, 2009 1505 Tiburon Boulevard J Tiburon, CA 94920 u~ Agenda Item: FS To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Members of the Design Review Board Assistant Planner Phillips 166 Rock Hill Road; File #709052 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of a New Single-Family Home ADDRESS: 166 ROCK HILL ROAD OWNER: WILL & JULIA ROBBERTS APPLICANT: MICHAEL HECKMANN (ARCHITECT) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 039-151-22 FILE NUMBER: 709052 LOT SIZE: 2300 SQUARE FEET ZONING: RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN) GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLOOD ZONE: C DATE COMPLETE: JUNE 19 2009 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 for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. Currently a one-story single-family dwelling occupies the property which would be demolished as part of this application. The project proposes the construction of a two-level home. The new home would include one bedroom, a three-car garage, laundry room, storage room, office/library, dinning room, living room, kitchen and family room on the main level. A master bedroom suite and two additional bedrooms would be located on the upper level. EXHIBIT NO. ~ swt't i`. r '4 s. There are a number of exterior improvements included with the proposal. A long trellis with exterior lights would be added along the side of the residence along the approach to the front entry. Various retaining walls and fencing (6 feet in height) would be added along the sides and rear of the property. A new swimming pool and spa would be added in the rear of the residence along with additional exterior lighting. The existing driveway would be replaced and reconfigured to include colored and scored concrete. The proposed home would create a lot coverage of 3503 square feet (14.8%) which is less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district (15.0%). The proposed new home would create a gross floor area of 4,357 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted floor area for a parcel of this size (4,366 sq. ft.). A color and materials board has been submitted, and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The structure would be finished with a combination of tan stucco, dark walnut wood trim and stone veneer. The roof would utilize a standing seam dark painted metal. ANALYSIS Design Issues The subject home is located on a sloping lot along the uphill side of Rock Hill Road and exceeds the minimum lot size for the RO-2 zoning district. The proposed home is of contemporary architectural style and appears to be designed with the intent of maintaining the views from the surrounding neighbors. The new second story would be set back from the front face of the garage and would extend out of the main level in a rectangular fashion. An internal stairway with large windows would access the second story. The front corner of the new second story may have the potential to impact water views from the neighboring uphill residence at 168 Rock Hill Road. If these concerns are substantiated, the Board could request that the new home be revised in order to maintain the views from the neighboring property. The Board is encouraged to view the story poles from this residence to evaluate the potential view impacts from the project. A variety of exterior changes are included with the proposal. A swimming pool and spa would be added to the rear yard. Retaining walls would be added in order to allow for multiple terraced patios, one with a built in barbeque. A combination of solid wood fencing and deer fencing (6 feet in height) would be added along the side and rear property lines. The improvements would improve and underutilized backyard. The project would add 381 cubic yards of fill to the south side of the subject property, supported by two retaining walls. The raised height of this lawn area could have the potential of looming over the adjacent home to the south at 160 Rock Hill Road. Landscaping is proposed to be planted in front of the retaining walls to screen these structures from the adjacent property. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone. EXHIBIT NO. ~ Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding this project. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental material 3. Submitted plans EXHIBIT NO. 3 To: From: Members of the Design Review Board Assistant Planner Phillips Design Review Board July 16, 2009 Agenda Item: Dl Subject: 166 Rock Hill Road; File #709052 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of a New Single-Family Home (Continued from June 18, 2009) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted a request for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. Currently a one-story single-family dwelling occupies the property which would be demolished as part of this application. This application was first reviewed at the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, various neighboring property owners along Rock Hill Road raised concerns that the design theme of the proposed new home would not be compatible with the surrounding area and would create an unfavorable visual prominence from the roadway. The uphill neighboring property owner expressed concern that the new second story would impact water views of Richardson Bay and Sausalito. There were also concerns from the downhill neighboring property owner that the additional retaining walls would loom over their property, the windows facing downhill would create excessive glare and the new swimming pool would create a privacy impact. The Board concluded that some of the neighboring concerns were substantiated and that it would be possible to redesign the project in order to decrease the impacts. The Board requested that the amount of glass facing downhill and the size of the proposed retaining walls on the downhill side of the property be scaled back. There was some discussion of the option of relocation or redesigning the swimming pool and the Board suggested the idea of doing so. It was the consensus of the Board that the architectural style of the proposed home was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that the second story of the home would not substantially impact views from the adjacent residences. The Board reviewed the proposal, but continued the project to give the applicant time to revise the proposal and to allow for additional dialogue between the neighbors. EXHIBIT NO. '4 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 ANALYSIS Design Issues The applicant has submitted revised plans showing various changes in response to the Board's suggestions and the concerns raised by the neighboring property owners. The amount of glass on the south elevation has been reduced by 32 square feet and a window on the upper level of the north elevation has been eliminated. The downhill retaining walls have been modified into a series of curved walls separated by landscaping. The walls have also been decreased in height and length and have been pulled away from the adjacent downhill neighbor. The swimming pool has been relocated approximately 10 feet further away from this neighbor. The deer fencing on the south side of the property has been relocated between the two retaining walls. The changes to the walls and location of the swimming pool seem to soften the impact on the downhill neighbor. Although the modifications to the windows on the south elevation would marginally decrease the amount of glare compared to the previous proposal, the large windows do not appear to create any major visual or privacy impact on the surrounding neighbors. The proposed deer fencing between the two retaining walls would create an inaccessible area and appears to be unnecessary. Alternately, the fencing could terminate at the ends of the 5 foot retaining wall and guardrail in order to accomplish the same goal. A condition of approval has been added to address this issue. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone. Public Comment Since last meeting, one letter has been received from an architect representing the uphill neighbor and one letter from the applicant describing the changes to the project. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. EXHIBIT NO. _ .r ATTACHMENTS: 1. Conditions of approval 2. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated June 18, 2009 3. Minutes from Design Review Board Meeting of June 18, 2009 4. Letter from Michael Heckmann, dated June 18, 2009 5. Letter from Jim Malott, dated July 8, 2009 6. Submitted plans EXHIBIT NO. ~ P y TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting August 6, 2009 Agenda Item:E3 Subject: 166 Rock Hill Road; File #709052 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of a New Single-Family Home (Continued from July 16, 2009) Reviewed By: SUMMARY The applicants have submitted a request for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. Currently a one-story single-family dwelling occupies the property which would be demolished as part of this application. This application was first reviewed at the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, various neighboring property owners along Rock Hill Road raised concerns that the design theme of the proposed new home would not be compatible with the surrounding area. The uphill neighboring property owner expressed concern that the new second story would impact water views of Richardson Bay and Sausalito. There were also concerns from the downhill neighboring property owner that the additional retaining walls would loom over their property, the windows facing downhill would create excessive glare and the new swimming pool would create a privacy impact. The Board requested that the amount of glass facing downhill and the size of the proposed retaining walls on the downhill side of the property be scaled back, with the additional suggestion to move the swimming pool further back. The application was continued to allow the applicants time to revise the project design. The applicants submitted a revised project design that was reviewed by the Board at the July 16, 2009 meeting. The amount of glass on the south elevation of the house was reduced and the downhill retaining walls were modified into a series of curved walls separated by landscaping. The swimming pool was relocated approximately 10 feet further away from the side property line. It was the consensus of the Design Review Board that the general design of the house was appropriate, but that the proximity of the wall to neighbors, the height of the wall, and the removal of existing vegetation were still substantial concerns. The application was again continued, with the applicants given direction to move the walls back and/or reduce their height and provide more landscaping in the area around the walls. The applicants were requested to provide more information on the materials and install story poles for the walls. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 5- PAGE 1 OF 6 The applicants have now submitted additional revised plans for the project. The two retaining walls along the southern side of the site have now been replaced by a single, 4 foot tall retaining wall that would be set back 12 to 17 feet from the side property line. The wall would be topped with a 42 inch tall open metal safety railing. To replace the level lawn area previously proposed on the south side of the house, the applicants now propose to move the swimming pool further to the rear and establish a level lawn space between the house and the pool. Two 5 foot tall retaining walls would be constructed to the rear of the pool. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone. Design Issues The revisions to the proposed plans are responsive to the direction given by the Design Review Board at the previous meeting. The single 4 foot tall wall would substantially reduce the visual mass viewed from the adjacent home to the south at 160 Rock Hill Road. Much of the existing vegetation between the two homes would also be preserved by setting the wall further back from the side property line. The new retaining walls behind the swimming pool would be visible primarily from the subject site. Town-owned open space occupies the property to the rear of the site, and therefore moving the pool further to the rear should not affect any nearby residents. PUBLIC COMMENT The owners of the adjacent property at 160 Rock Hill Road have submitted a letter conditionally approving the revised plans. As of the date of this report, no other letters have been received regarding the revised plans for this application since the previous meeting. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-4.2.7 (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. If the Design Review Board agrees with Staff s conclusions, the Board should approve the project and apply the attached conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Design Review Board Staff report dated June 18, 2009 TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. f 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated July 16, 2009 4. Minutes of the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 5. Letter from David and Jean Pelfini, dated July 24, 2009 6. Revised plans TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. 5- ..c A~2. i.F 'i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 166 ROCK HILL ROAD FILE #709052 (AS AMENDED AT THE AUGUST 6, 2009 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING) This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. Construction shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on June 15 2009, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of July 27, 2009 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawings, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating whether these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require additional Design Review approval. All such changes that have not been explicitly approved by the Town are not "deemed approved" if not highlighted and listed on construction drawings. Construction of any such unapproved project elements is in violation of pen-nit approvals and shall be subject to Stop Work Orders and removal. 4. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner (minimum 25%) and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 7. Guardrails approved as part of this application shall contain no horizontal elements other than the top and bottom rails. 8. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. ~ must be down-light-type fixtures. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to applicable MMWD landscape/water conservation regulations. Alternatively, a letter from MMWD verifying compliance or an MMWD-stamped-approved set of landscape plans will satisfy this requirement. 10. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 11. Prior to under-floor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be required. Required documents shall include: 1) graphic documentation accurately locating the building on a site plan; 2) specific distances from property lines and other reference points to the foundation as appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified. 12. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District: a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2. 10 C. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 3 04.1.2 d. The access gate shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 12'. Gates shall be operable using the Fire District's "Knox" key system. CFC 503.6.2 13. The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met: a. A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed. b. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted. C. Appropriate fees shall be paid. d. The structure's foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the sate TOWN OF TYBURON PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO, 5 of application. e. The applicant shall comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested. 14. A construction sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall be posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 15. All requirements of the Director of Public Works/Town Engineer shall be met. An encroachment permit shall be filed and issued with the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department, for all work to be conducted within Town right-of-way, or Town-owned land, as defined in Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 16. The project shall comply with the applicable green building standard for compliance as set forth by resolution of the Town Council. Failure to explicitly impose the condition on an approval shall not release a project from otherwise meeting applicable requirements of section 16-8 et seq. of this article. 17. The podocarpus and flowering plum trees at the southeast corner of the site shall be replaced in kind if removed or damaged during construction. 18. The retaining wall on the south side of the property shall be constructed of wood or timber materials. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. S_ agreed that other homes in the area have higher elevations than what is proposed. He noted that the other two-story house on Mercury Avenue was also very tall. He voiced concern for the impacts to the home at 5 Apollo Road, but noted that the proposed house would be well set back from the property line. He doubted that relocating one bedroom downstairs would alleviate any impacts on the neighbors, but perhaps moving one bedroom to the front downstairs might help. He said that there are all types of house designs in Belveron East. He felt that the adjustments made to the house address the neighbors' issues and allow the applicants to have some space on their lot. He said that the house would not feel as close to the neighbors as their photos show. Boardmember Kricensky cautioned that the term "neighborhood character" is often misused and that two stories are appropriate when creating a livable home. He reiterated his concern that the project's width and the size of the second story would create an urban feel and mass that would be inappropriate. Boardmember Wilson said Chair Doyle expressed it best in that this is not a question of the home's merits, but rather of the suitability of this home on this lot. He felt that this was the right house on the wrong lot. Mr. Watrous advised the Board of the following options: (1) approve the application; (2) provide direction for changes and continue the application to a future hearing; or (3) direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. He suggested that if the Board wishes to continue the item, it should first ensure that the applicant is willing to make the requested changes. Chair Doyle asked if the applicant has any interest in making further changes. Mr. Dibble said while there is room for increased setbacks and he is more than willing to reposition the home on the lot, they have been through each iteration of the home's layout, and at this point, are not willing to change anything in terms of program or floor plan. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Tollini) direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for 22 Mercury Avenue. Vote: 3-2 (Doyle and Chong opposed). 5. 166 ROCK HILL ROAD ROBBERTS, NEW DWELLING Boardmember Tollini reported that he had discussed with staff the potential for conflict of interest, but confirmed he could participate in the matter. The applicant has submitted a request for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. Currently a one-story single-family dwelling occupies the property which would be demolished as part of this application. The project proposes the construction of a two-level home. The new home would include one bedroom, a three-car garage, laundry room, storage room, office/library, dining room, living room, kitchen, and family room on the main level. A master bedroom suite and two additional bedrooms would be located on the upper level. Michael Heckmann, architect, reviewed the evolution of the project and proposed plans. He described the home as a contemporary style house with a concrete slab lower level with TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 6/ l 8/09 horizontal shapes and roof forms, eliminating the need for attics or vaulted ceilings and keeping the overall height to a minimum. He said the owners have designed something that is as close to their dream home on this lot, given any concerns that surrounding neighbors will allow. He said that several modifications have already been made with that in mind, including relocation of the garage, connected driveway, and pool/entertainment area. He shared photos taken from the master bedroom of the neighboring home owned by the Lacey's. He noted the views of Richardson Bay and the surrounding area are still visible from this and adjacent properties. He said the Design Review Guidelines do not consider a master bedroom to be a primary living area and that minor view blockages to the side are considered suitable. He said that the applicant will prune several existing plum trees along the property line that currently obstruct a portion of the neighbor's panoramic view. He said that the project would increase building setbacks and decreased its height, both of which significantly improve the primary view of neighbors in a much greater proportion than anything that might be obscured. He said that he met the Lacey's and their consultant last week to agree to two modifications: (1) a window located in the corner bedroom closest to the Lacey property will be eliminated; and (2) landscaping enhancements will be used between the 2 properties. He explained that the existing circumstances are, in part, due to the project's proximity to the Pelfini and Lacey residences, the latter of which extends well into the required setback. Pete Pedersen, landscape architect, reviewed the proposed grading. He said rather than truck away the material excavated from the pool site, the soil would stay on site to maximize flat areas. He acknowledged that the infill has created some concerns for neighbors, primarily arising from an issue with the existing property line fence, and the applicant would like to move the neighbor's fence back to the actual property line and in turn add landscaping to provide additional screening. Chair Doyle opened the public hearing. Jim Malott thanked the Robberts for working so graciously with neighbors, but said there are still major issues to be resolved. He reviewed the Hillside Design Guidelines and noted certain aspects of the project that conflict with those guidelines. He said that the project would move 357 cubic yards of dirt behind 2 retaining walls with a total height of 13.5 feet and place a swimming pool directly above the Pelfini residence, effectively adding another story to the home. He said the Lacey's would lose a chunk of their view of Sausalito and gain a view of a large, blocky home. Mr. Malott said that the applicant has been repeatedly asked to move the second story back, but to no avail. Ian Pearson said he lives 2 doors uphill from the applicant and was concerned that due to the flat nature of the roof, skylights and potential solar panels would reflect a large amount of light in his direction. He was also concerned that the proposed skylights and picture windows would emit a significant amount of uphill light at night and that the new structure would intrude into his view toward the hills and Golden Gate Bridge. He asked that the plans be changed to reduce the appearance of mass. He believed that the retaining walls would achieve the applicants' goals at inordinate cost to the Pelfini's. EXHIBIT NO. G TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 6/18/09 Jean Pelfini said the applicants' plans call for placing a retaining wall in an area that is currently well-sloped and heavy with natural foliage. She voiced concern that the wall would sit nearly 11 feet over the top of their home and be visible from the length of their driveway as well as from every window. She was also concerned that the location and height of the pool area would create spill-over noise onto her property and that the proposed picture windows would reflect light into her home. Tad Lacey said that he lives directly uphill from the applicant and is concerned about the mass of the home, invasion of privacy, and substantial loss of views. He stated that the history of remodel projects on upper Rock Hill Road are all clear examples of projects done with the utmost care and respect for the neighborhood. He noted that the Board denied a second story addition application for 155 Rock Hill Road due to view impacts. He felt that the contemporary style of this home would be inconsistent with its surroundings, which consist primarily of gabled homes with wide, unfenced yards. Mr. Lacey said the Robberts' had assured him at the time of purchase that they would uphold the previous owner's efforts to trim the plum trees, but the trees have not been pruned once and he is surprised to hear the same trees being used as evidence that his view is already blocked. John Kern stated that his primary concern was to preserve the architectural character of a long- standing neighborhood. He said that all other remodels in the area have left that character intact, using sloping and gabled rooflines and this would be the first total demolition on upper Rock Hill Road. He said that the importance of design review is to preserve a neighborhood's innate character - something that this home would not do. He said that the home seemed well-designed and beautiful, but he did not believe it was properly sited. Will Robberts, applicant, said that he and his wife are simply trying to accommodate a growing family. He said that he had worked on the plans for the last two years, scaled them back tremendously per neighbors' requests and has tried to follow the Hillside Guidelines wherever possible. He felt that he and the Pelfini's have identified issues and made significant efforts to resolve them. He also felt that he has taken the concerns of the Lacey's very seriously and managed to improve their view from every room except for the master bedroom. He noted that to do so, he moved the home as far back on the hill as possible, thus sacrificing his own primary views. He clarified that there are no plans to install solar panels. He denied any issue with the plum trees, stating that the previous seller did not inform him of any agreement with the Lacey's. He noted that the project requires no variances, and he respectfully requested the Board to approve the project expeditiously. Vice-Chair Chong questioned the landscaping to be used along the retaining wall and whether anything could be done to break up the look of a single straight line of walls. Mr. Pedersen said that they were considering swapping the two walls so that the shorter wall would sit lower and create a stepped effect. He said that they would like to plant the area prior to the home's construction to expedite the softening effect. He explained that they have proposed to keep the excavated material on site in an effort to reduce the number of trucks through the neighborhood and noted there are much taller walls throughout Town that have received no complaint. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 10 6/18/09 Boardmember Tollini acknowledged the applicant's desire to site the home on the western side of the property to maximize views. He questioned whether or not any consideration was given to shifting the house further east to minimize the impacts on neighbors. Mr. Heckmann said that moving the home further into the hillside would exponentially increase the amount of material offloaded from the site. He said that they have made numerous efforts to situate the rooms so that they would not impact neighbors, and he thought it was clear that they have made generous attempts to preserve the lion's share of the views from the Lacey's upstairs bedroom while also improving them from the lower level of the home. He acknowledged comments about the home's character but said that a contemporary home is always appropriate, if done correctly. Chair Doyle asked if any portion of the home was dug into the hillside. Mr. Heckmann explained that the site already has a large, flat surface and that they would essentially remove the existing home and replace it with a different home. He said that they have already stepped the home itself to eliminate any boxy effect. Chair Doyle said the southern facing picture windows would catch direct sun and he questioned how the applicant would mitigate this impact on neighbors. Mr. Heckmann said there are existing trees in addition to the proposed landscaping that should alleviate any privacy or reflection issues. He noted that the Pelfini's home is situated within the setback and the applicants have already sacrificed the best pool location to preserve the privacy of neighbors. Chair Doyle questioned if another wall tier would be possible. Mr. Pedersen said this had been considered but said the flat space is at a premium and they would prefer not to give it up. Chair Doyle questioned and confirmed that the length of the lawn would be roughly 25 feet. Boardmember Kricensky noted that the location of the Pelfini home, regardless of setback conflicts, is an existing situation that seems to have been completely ignored. Mr. Pedersen said that the retaining wall would be 5 feet onto the Robbert's property. He said they are trying to be as sensible as possible but should not be penalized for what is really an intrusion by the Pelfinis' house. Boardmember Kricensky noted that the dimensions listed do not allow for the proposed drainage. Mr. Peterson said these are schematics only and water currently flows straight down the property. He said that no matter what landscaping is installed, that flow would be lessened. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said he visited the site as well as the Lacey's home. He believed that the proposed project is large and close with major view impacts although not to any area that is technically considered primary living space. He said the applicant has designed a beautiful home, but one that would be very different from the surrounding area and very imposing when viewed from the street. He suggested that issues be addressed, including the impacts on the Pelfinis' house created by the large expanse of windows. Boardmember Wilson visited the site and also witnessed the views from the Lacey's deck. He felt that the architecture was fine, but dramatically different from other homes along this street. 11 TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 6/18/09 He took issue with taking a view that is currently obstructed by a red Maple tree and completely replacing it with a permanent structure. He disliked the placement of the pool and entertainment area in general and suggested the applicant move the house to this location, pushing the pool to the south or west. Vice-Chair Chong said that he lives in a modern home that was built in 1971 and he imagined there were similar objections to that home, as well. He appreciated the project's design and choice of materials. He felt that the retaining walls were well thought out and landscaped. He suggested that the pool, which would be mostly used during the day, may not significantly intrude upon the Pelfini's bedroom, which is primarily used at night. He said the project was well-sited and considerable attempts have been made to open up the views for neighbors by placing the second story where it would have less impact. He said that he could easily support the project. Boardmember Kricensky concurred and suggested that the proposed materials may tone down the modern feel of the design. He agreed that the amount of glass on the home's southern side was significant and seemed excessive, and suggested that a header be used to tone this down. He believed that the home is well-placed and while the pool's location is a concern, there may not be a more suitable location. He acknowledged the Lacey's concerns but said they have a fairly large panoramic view from a secondary living space, of which they would be losing only a small portion. He said that his biggest concern was the length and straight line of the retaining walls size and their proximity to the Pelfini's house. He noted that the applicants would be replacing existing vegetation and the walls would feel like a 10 foot tall wall when looking up from next door. He suggested that the applicants need to show more sensitivity to the existing situation, regardless of whose property it is. Chair Doyle also appreciated the home's modern design but shared concerns that the glass would be an issue. He noted that there are many different building styles and masses in the area. He thought that the use of wood, glass, stone, and stucco would make the house melt into the hillside beautifully and voiced no issue with the design. He said that everyone would like to keep all of their views, but what would be gained exceeds that which would be lost. He concurred with Boardmember Kricensky on the retaining walls and asked for something that would better respect the Pelfinis' home. He agreed that the design of the house needs to show more sensitivity on the south side, possibly with better landscaping. Mr. Heckmann agreed to install a header on the picture windows and asked the Board to provide direction on the percentage it would like the glass reduced. He asked the Board to consider approving the project with those amendments, and continuing the issue of landscaping to a later date. Boardmember Wilson questioned if the applicant would consider eliminating the pool. Mr. Heckmann said they could move it a bit to the north, but not eliminate it. Mr. Watrous advised that the specifications for the glass could be easily provided for as a condition of approval, but staff would be uncomfortable with a condition of approval describing changes to be made to the retaining walls. 12 6/18/09 ON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Tollini) to continue the application for 166 Rock Hill Road to the July 16, 2009 Design Review Board meeting. Vote: 5-0. G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #9 OF THE 6/4/09 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Wilson) to approve the minutes of the June 4, 2009 meeting, as written. Vote: 5-0. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 13 6/18/09 _ MINUTES #12 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 169 2009 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Vice-Chair Tollini, and Boardmembers Kricensky and Wilson Absent: Boardmember Doyle Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the application for 680 Hawthorne Drive has been withdrawn. D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 166 ROCK HILL ROAD ROBBERTS, NEW DWELLING The applicant has submitted a request for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. This application was first reviewed at the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, various neighboring property owners along Rock Hill Road raised concerns about the design theme of the proposed new home, potential water view impacts for the uphill neighboring property owner, and concerns from the downhill neighboring property owner about retaining walls and windows facing downhill. The Board requested that the amount of glass facing downhill and the size of the proposed retaining walls on the downhill side of the property be scaled back, and suggested relocation or redesigning the swimming pool. The Board continued the project to give the applicant time to revise the proposal and to allow for additional dialogue between the neighbors. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. Michael Heckmann, architect, said this project is causing change which is difficult for the neighbors to accept. He described property line issues with the neighbors, including a fence and landscaping across the property lines. He said that with these impositions in mind, the applicant still made some significant concessions to make the project more amenable to the neighbors by eliminating the window facing the Lacey's, and moving pool location back and changing the design and location of the retaining walls. He stated that they reduced the heights of windows and with the foreground trees and dense vegetation below the wall, sunlight reflection should be TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 EXHIBIT NO. 7/16/09 less of a problem. He showed photos of other houses in the vicinity and said that the proposed house would be compatible with the neighborhood. Pete Pedersen, landscape architect, said they moved the retaining walls away from the Pelfini's, have also shorted the length of the lower wall by 25% and took 8-10 feet off the length of the upper wall. He described the varying heights of the retaining walls and noted that there would be a 5 foot separation between the walls. He stated that the alignment of the walls would be well within the property, giving some space for existing and proposed landscaping. He said that some trees would be removed and they are proposing 36-inch box sized trees, which would have a 14- 16 foot height when planted, to reestablish the privacy barrier. He also noted that they moved the swimming pool 10 feet further away from the Pelfini's. David Cincotta, attorney, reviewed the property dispute with the Robberts and the Pelfinis. He stated that the two adjacent homes properties are nonconforming structures that intrude into setbacks, yet, the Robberts are willing to set back their improvements even further to accommodate the neighbors. He said that in the last year the Pelfinis have added new landscaping in the downhill area on the Robberts' property. He said that the uphill neighbors are still not satisfied even after seeing that the Robberts had pulled back the front of their building. He believed that the Robberts have designed a project that is sensitive to the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. Jim Malott, representing the Lacey's, Pelfini's, and other members of the neighborhood, said that the proposed home would make life worse for the neighbors if it is built as designed. He said that the house would be built upon a large, flat platform that would nearly double the visual mass of the house. He spoke about the property line dispute and said that the fully mature landscaping on the lower portion of the Robberts' property area would be torn out primarily to create a lawn for the Robberts and these trees are critical for the Pelfini's privacy. He suggested moving the house and rotating it 6 feet to preserve the view corridor and reduce the reflectivity of the windows. He said that the building design needs to be massaged, which would make a big difference for the neighborhood. Jean Pelfini said her primary concern is that the proposed construction would change the look and feel of their backyard and will make them feel like they are being closed in. She said that the first retaining wall appears to be 10 feet from their house and the second wall comes to just under the height of their roof. She said that the walls would be located directly in front of their master bedroom sliding glass doors and would be especially visible from the family room and master bedroom. She recognized that their house was built close to the property line 40 years ago but that was how it was when they purchased it. She said that the existing trees and shrubs are mature and provide excellent screening and she did not approve of the location of the new trees that would be only 5 feet from the property line and reduce their view of the hillside. She stated that her family suffers from allergies and has been careful about what they plan near their home. She characterized the reduction in glass as minor, stating that the south side of the house would be mostly windows and they are concerned about how this will affect them. She felt that their property would receive an unfair burden from the remodel because they would be looking TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 EXHIBIT NO. ~7 7/16/09 directly into a high wall. She requested that story poles be put up to allow them to assess the visual impact of the retaining walls. John Kern said that although the applicants had addressed two of the three concerns the Board had at the initial meeting by relocating the pool and reduced the amount of glass, he felt that the retaining wall remained unchanged. He said that the walls would add up to a 12 foot structure that separates this property from the neighbors. He held up a pole showing the height of the retaining walls, which he said would imprison the downhill neighbors and would be unacceptable. He said that the walls would completely violate the natural topography of this parcel and that one of the goals of design review must be to insure that new projects harmonize with the natural environment and the surrounding area. He strongly recommended a redesign. Ian Pearson said he lives above the site and would look down on their house. He requested the Board ensure light spill is minimized with no lights in skylight wells and he requested a dark brown roof color. He described how other homes along Rock Hill Road have been improved over the years and said that this has required compromise. He said that this project involves a vertical two-story house and would add a deck looking down on neighbors and a high retaining wall. He said that the building materials would be out of character and the retaining wall would devastate the downhill neighbors. He said that the massive wall would break up views of the beautiful rolling hills for those who drive by this property. David Flaherty said the neighborhood is very open and he enjoys its natural character. He said that he was only concerned about the retaining wall and he felt that it would be a tremendous loss for the Pelfini's if it is 12 feet high. He suggested that the wall be designed more in keeping with the landscape and he suggested putting up story poles to show the impact to the Pelfinis. Tad Lacey said he lives uphill from the Robberts home and has been in the neighborhood for 29 years. He described joint efforts between himself and the previous property owners for a fence between the two lots. He thought that the story poles had been raised since the last meeting. He noted that the interior entryway would be 23 feet 6 inches tall and all glass and would block his views. He said that moving the house to the back would resolve a number of problems for the neighbors. He asked to see story poles delineating the roof height of the library. Dave Pelfini clarified the accusation of the area that they have used a portion of the Robberts' property, stating that they intentionally did not plant anything in the area below the fence that is the Robberts' property. Patricia Navone said she represented the Robberts in the purchase of their home, and there was no disclosure about a common fence. She said that Robberts had survey done so they were very clear about the property lines. Julia Robberts, owner, felt they have come up with a good design that takes into account the neighbors' concerns. She said that they purchased the property two years ago and love the views and family environment of the neighborhood. She said that they are very invested in the neighborhood and plan to live there for a long time. She respected the rights of neighbors to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 eAHIBIT NO. 7/16/09 express opinions, and hoped that the neighbors will respect their right to build a home that works for their family. Mr. Heckmann said that he understood that change is difficult, but he felt that there was also a fair amount of exaggeration about the impacts of the proposed house. He said that they would provide landscaping, terrace the wall properly, preserve the main views for the Lacey's, and have responded to the Board's concerns. Mr. Pedersen noted that the existing slope comes down abruptly and currently one cannot see how steep it is because it is full of scotch broom. He proposes putting in a terraced green environment alongside the walls. Will Robberts, owner, said that the change in height is already in existence today because of the hill so it is incorrect to state that they will put in a tall wall because that would be following the contour of the hill that already exists. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Tollini said that the built up portion of the site is an existing condition of the land. He stated that nonconforming uses and fences outside the lot lines are fairly common. He said that putting this much earth in an area close to a nonconforming house is another matter. He said that retaining wall would move the high point of the lot much closer to the Pelfinis' house. He thought that some progress on the project had been made, but was concerned that the walls were perhaps still too high and too close. Boardmember Wilson stated that the issues with the pool, house design and retaining walls had been only marginally addressed. He was still concerned that the project would replace a view of trees with a permanent structure. He said that the wall was still the main issue and the sloped area between the homes had been landscaped over time. He said that when these properties were developed 30 to 40 years ago they were probably leveled out, and the downhill neighbor's house is an existing condition. He felt that it was not natural to build a tall retaining wall to create a flat lawn. He said that he could possibly support the project if the downhill area was left in its current condition and this might eliminate a lot of friction between the neighbors. Boardmember Kricensky said that he was disappointed that so few changes had been made to the wall because he had hoped to see one with a more natural appearance. He said that the wall height is also a concern. He said that the fact that a developer created these pads and then put a house within two feet of the property line is unfortunate, but this was 40 years ago so the applicants need to work with the neighbors. He said that the wall would form the visual base for the house when driving up the street. He said moving the retaining wall back 5 feet or terracing the walls further would help, but he believed it is trying to create a level lawn on the slope did not feel natural. He said that the house would take only part of a larger panoramic view for the uphill neighbors. He said that moving the pool back helps, but changing the slop to put in a lawn felt wrong. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 EXHIBIT NO. 7 4 7/16/09 Chair Chong said the lot line situation is unfortunate, but it was done a long time ago. He felt that the improvements made the project dramatically better. He said that many property owners in Tiburon have moved a lot of earth around and that flattening the lot would not be unnatural by Tiburon standards. He said that the retaining wall would have multiple tiers and be landscaped, but he thought that stone wall might look a little nicer. He said that he would like to see more done, but the wall had been moved back and the shrubs, which would be more like small trees, would supplement the existing landscaping. He said that he could support the project with a changed to the materials of the walls. Boardmember Wilson said there is not enough area to have a huge level lawn on the side. Chair Chong questioned how far would the wall would need to be moved toward the house to be acceptable. Vice-Chair Tollini said that he did not have a number, but would know better if it story poles were installed because this is a material element of the landscape. The public hearing was re-opened. Boardmember Wilson asked whether the existing landscaping could be retained and then fill be brought forward from the pool area. Mr. Pedersen said they could reduce the height of the walls by adding a third tier and give up some flat area. Planning Manager Watrous suggested that the Board could request that only a single six foot tall wall be allowed much closer to the house. Mr. Pedersen asked if the house could be approved by the Board and the redesigned site plan could be brought back to Staff for approval. Vice-Chair Tollini said he was basically happy with the house design and pool location, and Chair Chong noted that his main concern was the retaining wall. Mr. Robberts said they have been very flexible and willing to compromise but are facing a time constraint because they want to begin grading before winter. He said that they could possibly redesign the project with only a single six foot wall if that was all that was needed. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said he did not have enough information about changes to the retaining walls to make a decision for approval. Vice-Chair Tollini said the more distant of the two walls may be a starting point for giving guidelines as to the location of a six foot wall, and his preference was to see a six foot tall, one-wall solution and story poles. The consensus of the Board was that the remaining concerns were proximity of the wall to neighbors, height of the wall, and the removal of existing vegetation. They also wanted to see more detail on the landscaping plan itself, materials for the walls and story poles installed for the walls. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Wilson) to continue the application for 166 Rock Hill Road to the August 20, 2009 meeting. Vote: 4-0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 EXHIBIT NO, 7 s 7/16/09 Chair Chong said that the applicant had made substantial changes that addressed all of the Board's concerns. He stated that the revised design complied with the Board's direction and he supported the project. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Tollini) that the request for 526 Comstock Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-1 (Kricensky opposed). 3. 166 ROCK HILL ROAD ROBBERTS, NEW DWELLING The applicants have submitted a request for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. This application was reviewed at the June 18 and July 16, 2009 Design Review Board meetings. At thee most recent meeting, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that the general design of the house was appropriate, but that the proximity of the wall to neighbors, the height of the wall, and the removal of existing vegetation were still substantial concerns. The applicants have now submitted additional revised plans for the project. The two retaining walls along the southern side of the site have now been replaced by a single, 4 foot tall retaining wall that would be set back 12 to 17 feet from the side property line. The swimming pool would be moved further to the rear and a level lawn space established between the house and the pool. Two 5 foot tall retaining walls would be constructed to the rear of the pool. David Cincotta, attorney, said the applicants have attended two meetings with neighbors to come to a solution. He said that they came to an agreement that affords additional privacy and reduces the retaining walls considerably to 4 feet, which he felt was a good solution. He noted that there are no variances required for the project. Pete Pederson, landscape architect, reviewed the new landscaping plan. He said that the new plan would not require removing existing trees, provide more screening, and create a hedge along the front of the 4 foot retaining wall. He said that they would build one 5 foot wall behind the house, and another 4 foot wall behind it, with plantings in between. He said that the flat space would be moved to an area that will not affect the uphill neighbors. The public hearing was opened. Jim Malott said the landscaping plan was greatly improved, particularly saving the podocarpus trees and improving the screening. He said that the wall would now be far enough away that it will not have as much of an effect on the neighbors. He said that he was disappointed that more consideration was not given to the building and siting. He said that the height of the library roof in its new configuration would obscure more of the neighbors' water views than the previous version and that turning the house location slightly would greatly help to preserve the Lacey's view corridor, and that pushing the building back 6 feet would help even more. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 4 8/6/09 EXHIBIT NO. t9 Jean Pelfini stated that the new plans are acceptable to them. She requested that the existing flowering plum trees and podocarpus trees be replaced in kind if they become damaged during construction. Tad Lacey acknowledged the cooperation that took place in the revision of the proposal, but he still had concerns with the size of the house. He said that the clear glass entryway would be over 23 feet high and would cause light pollution in the neighborhood. He said that the roof of the library in front of the building would be 3 feet higher than the garage, and he noted that the story poles do not currently show that height. Ian Pearson said they he had no objections to the project as it is currently proposed. However, the taller roof area on the west side of the house would be visible from all of the rooms in his house, and he was concerned about the light from the window on that structure. He suggested reducing the intrusiveness of the light from the window by tinting, frosting, and removal of light fixtures. He said that the size and function of that area make it a nonessential design element that would negatively impact all of the uphill neighbors. Mr. Cincotta said they have no objection to the condition to plant replacement trees if any are destroyed. He said that they were perplexed by some of the other comments because they have already been addressed in the revised proposal. Michael Heckmann, architect, agreed they have already resolved the issues that had been brought up. Boardmember Kricensky questioned and confirmed with Mr. Heckmann there are no plans for a decorative lighting fixture in the entry. Mr. Heckmann added that downlights are proposed to be focused to the floor below and not on the glass itself. Boardmember Doyle questioned the benefits of turning the house to improve the uphill neighbors' views. Mr. Heckmann said that a slight spin would not change things significantly for the uphill neighbors but, in fact, would cause the applicants to build higher retaining walls between their house and the Lacey's home. He noted that this change was proposed at the last meeting and did not seem to have support from the Board. Boardmember Wilson asked if there was a drawing of the retaining wall. Mr. Pederson explained that there were images of wood retaining walls contained in the last set of plans. Planning Manager Watrous said the final plan must include those drawings, or the Board can specify it as a condition of approval. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said he believes there has been a lot of effort and time spent on the project to work with the neighbors. He said that visited the uphill neighbors' house and the view is tucked to the side and is currently obscured by an existing structure. He said that the proposed house would not impact any additional views. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 EXHIBIT NO. 8/6/09 Vice-Chair Tollini said that there is a view impact from the master bedroom of the Lacey's home, but the view from downstairs, where the living room and communal spaces are located, would actually improve. He said light pollution is not much of an issue because this house has very little glazing, and he believed that the applicant had gone above and beyond to accommodate neighbors' concerns. He said that the entry was quite large, but was a fundamental part of the project design. He noted that the substantial change to the retaining walls satisfied the Pelfinis. Boardmember Doyle said that the pool location was much better and moving the retaining walls was a great compromise. He thought that the applicant had done a good job of compromising, have answered all of the Board's concerns and worked with neighbors to resolve problems. Boardmember Kricensky commended the applicants and the neighbors for working together. Regarding the light issue, the entry structure would be about 6 feet wide and 9 feet tall, just a little bigger than a standard sliding glass door. He was more concerned with the amount of glass on the south elevation, but acknowledged that this had been reduced. Chair Chong said the applicant had been more than generous to set the wall further back and give part of their yard to create some separation between the neighbors. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Doyle) that the request for 166 Rock Hill Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional conditions of approval that the plum and podocarpus trees be replaced in kind if removed or damaged during construction, and that the southern retaining wall be constructed of wood or timber materials. Vote: 5-0. F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 4. 1877 CENTRO WEST STREET LAMAR, ADDITIONS/VARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 1887 Centro West Street. A new lower level of floor area would be added on roughly the same level as the existing garage, containing a new kitchen, living room, entry and powder room. A play room would be added to the second level. A small extension would be made to the front of the third level, with the existing kitchen and living room removed and the level reconfigured to include a master bedroom suite, two bedrooms and one bathroom. A new swimming pool and spa would be installed in the front of the site and new walls and fencing would be constructed in various locations on the site. The proposed project would increase the floor area of the house by 1,232 square feet to a total of 4,082 square feet, which is greater than the 3,021 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Therefore a floor area exception is requested. The lower floor addition would increase the calculated height of the house from 30 feet to 34 feet, 1 inch. As the maximum building height in the R-2 zone is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 6 6 8/6/09 EXHIBIT NO. - 9 x°009 JUL Memorandum to: Design Review Board, Tiburon Mr. Scott Phillips, Associate Planner Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon, Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 From: Jim Malott representing Mr. and Mrs. Lacey 168 Rock Hill Road and neighborhood Tiburon, CA 94920 Date: July 8, 2009 Re: Robberts residence 166 Rock Hill Road Gentlemen: This memorandum is to outline the concerns with the present state of the Robberts residence plans. 1. Issues for uphill neighbor (Lacey) at 168 Rock Hill Blvd. a. The two-story decorative tower is the highest and farthest westward element of the massive, boxy, Robberts residence. This element and the rest of the box represent a significant and unnecessary view block to the Lacey residence from the main entertainment deck (a ceremonial space), master bedroom and family entertainment room. It is easily possible to revise this 22 ft. high space which is patently in direct violation of the Tiburon Design Guidelines. The first sentence of the Design Guidelines regarding view blockage states "to preserve existing views, as much as possible and allow new dwellings access to views similar to those enjoyed from existing dwellings". Guideline 3, Principle 1, Page 27. There is an easy solution to this problem. i. Solution: Move entire residence 6 ft east, or angle-cut off the entry tower to create 6 ft. less view blockage and a more interesting architectural form. b. The ceiling of the proposed library is 13 ft high, which is ridiculous in a 14 ft square room. This results in a roof line that creates more view blockage than the existing garage for the Lacey views above. This, again, is unnecessary view blockage and easily solved. i. Solution: Lower the ceiling height from 13 ft to 10 ft. c. The proposed excavation on the uphill portion of the lot scrapes to bedrock the areas to the east and north of the proposed residence. No trees EXHIBIT NO. R ? . 0F- 3 Design Review Board, Tiburon Mr. Scott Phillips, Associate Planner Page 2 or major shrubs can grow on the remaining rock. No terracing is proposed for soil and water retention. i. Solution: Provide a terraced landscape or other plan. d. Fencing on the perimeter of the property is not shown. No fence details in the critical driveway areas or area between residences and at the uphill perimeter is indicated. A wire deer fence is neither adequate nor aesthetically pleasing. Provide details. e. Story poles have been revised upward over 2' 6" since the hearing on June 181 2009. The proposed residence was huge and is now even larger; a blocky structure with a flat, square look in a neighborhood of simple, gabled homes. This is an inappropriate design for this area. In addition, the architect has dimensioned plate heights rather than roof heights, which "cheats" the height of the building downward by about 1' 6". This is a violation of Guideline 2, Principle 1, Page 12. "Do not use colors, textures, materials and forms which will attract attention by not relating to other elements in the neighborhood. Remember, the hillside seen as a whole is a texture made up of dwellings, trees, and open spaces. No one dwelling should stand out." f. Due to the large amount of screen planting proposed, none of which is native and all of which will require excessive amounts of water, the landscaping for screening will rapidly become a potential view blockage for the Lacey residence. A pruning agreement must be a part of this project to protect the Lacey view from obstruction. 2. Issues for downhill neighbors and neighborhood. a. The proposed project attempts to make a flat lot of an existing hillside lot by cutting into the uphill and filling an enormous retaining structure on the downhill side. This is absolutely against the entire concept of the Tiburon Design Guidelines for hillside housing. See Guideline 1, Principle 2, on Page 2. i. Solution: Much less cut and a series of 3' high or lower retaining walls, farther apart in a sinuous, more gentle form. b. The huge, flat, platform created by the proposed retaining walls, has the effect of enlarging the visual effect of the building by one full story in height and 140 ft in length, when seen from the street or the neighborhood. No landscaping can conceal this effect. The purpose of the flat area thus created is to allow for a lawn, which is three times the size of lawn area recommended by MMWD and which will use enormous amounts of water in our drought critical area. c. The separation between the two retaining walls proposed is so narrow that visually the two walls become a single wall. Putting that wall right next to a property line and a neighbor's residence has the effect of burying the EXHIBIT NO. P. 2~3 Design Review Board, Tibui un Mr. Scott Phillips, Associate Planner Page 3 downhill neighbor's lot and house. This is in direct violation of Design Guideline 1, Principle 7, on Page 7. d. The main living area of this massive blocky building, seen from downhill, forms a huge single plane over 800 sq ft in area. This is a major violation of Guideline 2, Principle 2, Page 13. e. The huge roof overhang on the two story element adds visual mass and vertical height to the building when seen from downhill, a violation of Guideline 1, Principle 6, Page 6. f. The reflective glass area on the downhill side remains about 650 sq ft in area, which will reflect a brutal and enormous glare at the downhill neighbors during certain times of each day. This reflection is a violation of Guideline 2, Principle 1, Page 12. g. Color and materials appear to be light in value, which will stand out against the background of dark green foliage on the hills. All colors should be in the dark grays or greens or browns to blend with the foliage background and not brutally clash with the neighborhood structures. Guideline 2, Principle 1, Page 12. We will have additional remarks at the Design Review hearing of July 16, 2009. Respectfully, 4 James S. Malott S EXHIBIT N0. 't ?,L 3 0 F S LATE MAIL # D i July 9, 2009 Design Review Board Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 166 Rock Hill Road David and Jean Pelfini 160 Rock Hill Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: F 71 1- ;JUL - 9 009 We have reviewed the revised plans for 166 Rock Hill Drive. Our primary concern is with the proposed retaining walls. We still have concerns about the height of the two retaining walls and their close proximity to our house and backyard. We wish to preserve as much of the natural privacy buffer between our two properties as possible, which consists of a natural slope and many mature trees and plants. We invite all of you to view our yard and home prior to the meeting on July 16, 2009. Please feel free to walk around our property on your own and at your convenience. Respectively, David Pelfini 415-435-4176 jeandave2@comcast.net Jean Pelfini EXHIBIT NO. )D' LATE MAIL # D I July 12, 2009 Scott Phillips Associate Planner Town of Tiburon RE: Proposed Remodel at 166 Rock Hill Drive, Tiburon yr,. JUL. 13 X009 Pit i~ (3+ We just arrived at our home on Rock Hill Drive for a few days before going back to the Tahoe area, where we spend most of the summer. We noticed that the story poles at 166 Rock Hill Drive are higher than they were when we were last here. We still have not been contacted by the homeowners at 166 Rock Hill about their proposed design. Given the new height of the story poles, we continue to have concern over the size of the remodel. We understand from our neighbors, that much of the front facade will be glass, which makes the new height even more of a concern. We understand that there is another Design Review meeting to discuss this remodel on Thursday, July 16th. We would like to attend this meeting to voice our concerns but unfortunately can not change our plans. Please accept this letter as evidence of our concern over this remodel. Thank you. 4f 1/1 ~1'C~ aN/. Suzanne and Harry Smith 159 Rock Hill Drive Tiburon, California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. FF- - LATE MAIL # THOMAS C. LACEY 168 ROCK HILL DRIVE TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 €F a JUL 15 2009 Via Fax (415) 435-2438 and email, sphillips(&-ci.tiburon.ca.us July 15, 2009 Design Review Board Tiburon Town Hall 1550 Tiburon Blvd. Town of Tiburon Tiburon CA 94920 Re: Proposed Addition for 166 rock Hill Drive Road Dear Design Review Board: We have reviewed the plans submitted for the proposed remodel at 166 Rock Hill Drive, dated July 1, 2009 and submitted to the City on July 6, 2009. We want to submit the following comments for your consideration: 1. The height of the story poles has been raised 2 feet 6 inches since the last meeting of the Design Review Board, to reflect the correct elevations of the proposed structure. The effect of this increase in elevation is to block our entire view of the horizon toward the Bay behind the structure. This is a significant increase in the obstruction of our view from the ceremonial family room and master bedroom, which is an exception to the Design Guidelines. 2. The interior entryway is 23 feet 6 inches high and all glass, which at the increased height of 2 feet six inches blocks our view and creates a large light spill. Per the Design Guidelines this feature of the house should be lowered to "preserve exiting views, as much as possible and allow new dwellings access to views similar to those enjoyed from existing dwellings". 3. The Robberts have proposed a home, which is at the maximum for the size and the approved building envelope. It is their desire to have a large home on a level lot, on the side of the hill. If the home is built in the current location, it has significant impacts on each of the neighbors. However, if the home is slightly relocated to the rear of the property and positioned correctly, the Robberts' goal is achievable. 4. To date there has been very little compromise in the design of the house, retaining wall and glass with any of the neighbors, including the Pelfinis, Smiths, Pearson's, Flaherty's, Kerns and us. All of these families have remodeled their home and worked closely with the neighbors to insure the improvements were compatible with the neighborhood and did not impose on the surrounding homes and views. EXHIBIT NO. FL (oc_ --Z- 5. The garage, as submitted, has a roof height of 11 feet. If the garage remains in the view corridors of our residence, it would more acceptable if it were lowered to a standard height of 9 feet. 6. The library roof height is 15 feet as designed. The height of this roof should be lowered to maintain the roof profile. This roofline is not currently included as elevations by the story poles in place. 7. The door for the pool equipment, which faces our house, is a roll up door. It must be acoustically tight. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 14 Tad and Ann Lacey EXHIBIT N0. ~ 2- David and Jean Pelfi.ni 160 Rock Hill Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 July 24, 2009 Design. Review Board Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 166 Rock Hill Road E JUL 2 8 ?009 P: LJ I-- ,s The Robberts have presented us with the attached plans for landscaping at 166 Rock Hill Road. These revised plans address the concerns we have communicated to you in previous meetings and letters. We are pleased to inform. you that the revised landscape plans have our approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The version of the landscape plans dated 7-24-09 that we have reviewed and are attached in an email to Scott Phillips dated 7-27-09 match both the plans that are submitted to you for review as well as the plans that are discussed at the Design Review Board meeting on 8-6-09. 2. The pink string laid out can 7-2`1-09 marking the height and length of the proposed retaining wall is not materially different from the retaining wall sketched in the landscape plans dated 7-24-09. 3. The retaining wall is reviewed by the Town, of Tiburon Planning Division staff and the Design Review Board for conformity to structural integrity and drainage, 4. No modification to the existing pattern of drainage will occur on our property. 5. The existing group of podocarpus trees and two flowering plum tomes shown to remain on the plans dated 7-24-09 will remain and will be replaced in kind if they are damaged or destroyed during the course of construction. We feel that these trees are extremely important in providing a privacy screen between our two properties. Again, we. invite all of you to walk around our property on your own and at your convenience, prior to the meeting. Respectively, David Pelfini 41.5-435-4176 jeandave2@comeast.net S r f Jean Pelfini EXHIBIT NO. t3 P. t 0 Ez L W z L L VD 'NOMI rIqL -L c u w - ' QHOX TIIH >IDOX 99T 6 h Z7 _ \ V I - , t,\\. / 4i'1 C X1.1 \1 ~ I= J (1) FF V t u~I b'cW ~4[• J Lx VI 1 ~ 0-4 I ~ z c~ E i 1 Nlll t')SIAJY.Y M \ 4 E..1++/1'' 2 1'~ ~j. ~ h.Sf N(YTiY )SYJF.a \IIY _t. ~ \ \ ~ - E~ W. S ~ - 1 _ ~-~~1L_~I, 2 i / \ .I~f1! T I ~ ~Wx ~ ~s ~ ce - ~i \ / 1 ~ ~`~~5 ,`yip/ 15 ms's sa _ ~ ~ ~1d ~IN e zK _ ~L~ys i :i ✓J, V £ - of ~gg D F. ~S ~ K F~ .f OaZ.. olS m. I 7L 2-~-W1 Z f ~2 X V3 0 u z e ~ w zoo 0I 'v J LF i s Z k- 1~< <Z o e ss G 'Yz " _ f Zri w ~ . _ 7k ? = a o - y Z ~ ~ 1.S a~ k ~ Y t S Y F F ~ 5 ~ r'F v 9 2 C as E x~E CL _ F" ` J 711 0 tP--f W Tiburon Design Review Board August 6, 2009 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Robberts Residence, 166 Rock Hill Dear Boardmembers: My wife Julie and I and our children reside two houses above and to the side of the proposed project. Tonight we'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of you and Mr. and Mrs. Robberts and their team for listening and responding in a constructive way to reduce the impacts raised at previously meetings. We especially want to commend you all for reducing the impact of the front retaining wall. As it is currently proposed, we have no objection. We believe the process worked for 4 reasons: because the hard numbers were laid on the table, factual discrepancies were ironed out, questions were addressed and not swept aside, and legitimate impacts were reduced by creative problem-solving. In that spirit of problem-solving, rd once again to draw your attention to another issue I have also mentioned at both prior hearings, and that is the large ceremonial window now located on the west side of the structure, on the top floor. Since we are at a 45-degree angle above the project, that wall is the most visible from our house from all our ceremonial morns. '.This window an the project's 2nd story appears to be about 6-by-4 feet although the dimensions are not listed on the drawings, but it appears to be almost a full story tall. That window will emit light from their first floor ceremonial space below, which because of the project's open floor plan is a large portion of the downstairs. The window is also open to the 2nd floor hallway. Therefore the light spill from that window in the evenings will be almost constant because it will be coming from any of several locations on two floors of open living space. The bright light will have an impact on us every night--of 5 houses on that side of the street, it will be the only one with a large ceremonial light against the dark hillside, and it lies directly to the left of our view of the Golden Gate Bridge. At previous meetings we have asked that the design team and boardmembers explain what will be done about this light spill. Unlike the retaining wall, we have not heard anyone address this impact. We have asked that the plan include tinting for that window, perhaps frosted glass or louvers, that the window not include its own light fixture, that an angled window be considered to reduce the surface presented to the uphill neighbors. None of these would hurt the ceremonial or light-emitting functions of this window, but they would greatly reduce what we're worried will be an eyesore After all, there are no street lights on Rock Hill for a reason, and this windows size and lomfion a it far mane intrusive. 4-`cQ.~c vt~' We have raised this issue three times and unlike the commendable attention paid to the retaining wall, we've heard nothing that addresses our cnncems, and we've not heard any of our suggestions even considered. Please give this large and intrusive light spill a measure of the consideration you've given to other impacts of the house. Its size and function make it a non-essential design element that negatively and unnecessarily impacts us. We'd like to hear from you tonight, and we thank you. rtcerely yo Ian and Ju a earson, 170 Rock Hill 4 EXHIBIT N0._Iq Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:33 AM To: 'nfaidi@aol.com' Cc: Diane Crane lacopi w AUG 3 1 2009 TDWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Subject: RE: 166 Rock Hill Road, Marin County Assessor Parcel No. 039-151-22 Dear Mr. Faidi, Thank you for your comments, which will be passed along to the Town Council. Please be advised, however, that since you did not raise these issues during the hearings in front of the Design Review Board, the Council is not obligated to consider these concerns. Please let me know if you would like to come by Town Hall to review the plans for the proposed house and discuss this further. Sincerely, Dan Watrous Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: nfaidi@aol.com [mailto:nfaidi@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:35 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 166 Rock Hill Road, Marin County Assessor Parcel No. 039-151-22 Dear Mr. Watrous: Pursuant to my conversation with Connie Cashman, I am writing expressing our objections to the planned house development as follows: 1. the plans show that there will be windows and sky lights facing our house, which will cause lights at night to be reflected towards us. 2. They have planted trees in the past (without permits) and they propose to plant tress, that have grown and will grow to obstruct our water view. We have been requesting them to trim the trees, for the past 7 years and they are yet to do so. (legal action is being reviewed and contemplated by us). It is my belief that the approval of this plan (by the city) will effect our home its value and peaceful existence and without the control of the tree growth, our view will be blocked more so than now. I urge you to take these issues in consideration, and I would suggest the applicant to adhere to the existing laws by trimming and controlling the tree growth, or removing the tress, before requesting more trees to be planted, Our view has been obstructed and we can not allow more obstruction to occur. Thank you Namir Faidi 10 Miraflores lane Tiburon, Ca. Phone: 713.256.3401 - y OWN UNCIL SATE MAIL # P~ MEETING ID E 8/31/2009 MICHAEL AEL Sheet Index HECKMANN Pro'ect Pro ect Directo 1 rY MANN 1 ~~ri~iTr#~ RCHITECT architect 1. A0.1 DATA SHEET WILL S JULIA ROBBERTS MICHAEL HECKMANN AIA 2. C1.0 SURVEY OF RECORD 12o MAIN STREET N STREET 166 Rock Hill Drive 12D Main Street 3. A1.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & STORYPOLE LEGEND TIBURON Tiburon, CalHanla 94920 Tiburon, CaHornia 94920 , _ ~ , CALIFORNIA 415-789-5007 phone 4. A2.0 PROPOSED FLOOR & ROOF PLANS -yg -1-0 N s kU ».~c„;,„;,,,~;,,,,,.,w,„ ' . 41535-2446 phone 94920 S. A3.0 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS dr SITE SECTION A-A 415-035 2815 (ax >3:tiN •.:::•:v~";:; .,•~.r.ip.'~wk~x>,w ..w.._. ;~~M:~^::: :~`.,.w`~ - 415 435 2446 "M~ structural englrroer 6. A3.1 SRE SECTN)N B-B s ~ z c ,race, " <i 7. L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ ~`'z HATE WILLNMS larrdsnpe architect <:l~.. s ~ 33 li Street J ; xz 60 Ade ne 41 ~ , Berkeley, California 94703 PETE PEDERSEN ' 415.839.1022 phone 24 H Street 415.358.8687 Tax San Rafael, Calfornia 94901 Pedersen Assocume ~ ~6 r< k ~ 415~456.2D70phone t~nderepeArchlroclure r~ 415-456-2086 fax r•.o.,.wer~aearrn nsu r , < z ..w«. ' surrrya / dvil mglnt>er g : < r 1~~ N srrcx ~ Sat Rarael CA BaWr , , ( , LAWRENCE P. DOYLE are w. • r ~ ' P 0 Boz 1609 contractor yea rug F ~ < • 1 x<t Mill Valley, Glitornia 94942 .A Ag Ip LJ!a; g, 415-388-9585 phone JESSE W. RHODES 35 Mitchell Blvd. Sulte 14 xnM race ~ ~ San Rafael, CaHomta 94903 oe I r I ve 415-507-1511 phone 415-507-1598 fax • ~ ~ Vicini Ma I f D i n m licences Pro ect n o & es Co P J g P I uron a I ornla 166 ROCK HILL ROAD, TIBURON CALIFORNIA API': 039.151 •22 r I otes Gene a N ' w k ° ~ ADDRESS: 166 ROCK HILL DRIVE, TIBURON CALIFORNIA f ~ U x INGS AND SPEGfICATIONS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MICHAEL CODE: 1997 UBC, 2000 UPC, 2000 UMC, 2002 NEC, & 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING 1. OWNERSHIP OF DRAW Z s ~ $ STANDARDS [REF]. 2001 CBC, 2001 CMG, 2001 CPC, 2004 CEC AND 2005 GEES, AND LOCAL W HECKMANN A.LA. ARCHITECT. ':;r W ~ ~ 2. THESE PLANS ARE NOT INTENDED TO SHOW THE METHOD AND MEANS Of EXECUTION OF THE WORK. THAT IS ? ~ ~ vA,', ORDINANCES N #am THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. , ~ ~ I A ORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 ~ TYPE V CONSTRUCTION, WOOD, CONCRETE AND GLASS. ~ O ~ 3. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE N CC s. ~~ry ~ 01 BUILDING CODE & BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AS ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. IT IS 3 s>a k" J .y'". ~ x'f ! , PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE EXISTING W J Q THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE. - JJ t~;' ~ 4`~~ ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W 4. ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN . ij `*.~a 9 ,.:r, f, OWNER-SUPPLIED DCtCUMENTS. ' •~y,-.;~ ~ ZONING: RO-2 ~ ~ ~ Z 5. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW AND FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE ~,J O ~ ~ I- CONTRACTDRAWINGS AND SPECIfICATIONS, AND SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH 9, ~ O ~ OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 +I .r i, CONSTRUCTION. If ANY CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN PORTIONS OF THE CONTRACT DCICUMENTS AND/ OR ANY CC ] I O TRA OR TO CONTACT THE f W m f EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONS BILIIY OF THE GENERAL C N R , CONSTRUCTION TYPE. VB ~ ~ ~ lit i/ MM ARCHITECT PRIOR TO EXECUTION. ' ;a . ,i W . ~ - 6• THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE SCALED. ALL WORK SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE DIMENSIONS INDICATED ~ ' ~ r •f' ^°^•~"N"~' SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MM ~ DENSITY: ONE W ON THE DRAWINGS. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL 8E BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND LAYING TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT. ALL DIMENSIONS RE L SQ. FT. PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE WORK. 7. ANY WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR, UNLESS CLAIMED 8Y THE _ rn OWNER AND SHALL BE DISPOSED Of AWAY FROM THE JOB SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS• , S D ALLOWED C VERAGE EXISTING PROPO E LOT O 8. DURING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROLLING NOISE, ODORS, S~Jmbols N R WAYS• / _ E IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES A D OAD DUST AND DEBRIS TO MINIMIZ I G FOOTPRINT: 2 738 aan. 3 465 as n. BUILD N r r 9. ALL SPECIAL INSPECTION AGENCIES/ INDIVIDUALS AND SHOP FABRICATORS SHALL BE APPROVED 27 JULY 09 PARTMENT PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED. SUBMIT datum pant 6076 OF DECKS Ice BY THE BUILDING DE 1 detail number _ CANTILEVERS: PLANNING SUBMITTAL 4 ALL DOCUMENTATION TOR APPROVAL. i _ A3.1 sheet where deail is drawn intedaelevakannumber TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 2,738 aan. 3,503 ann. 3,549 pn. „ 1e revisions TOTAL LOT COVERAGE sheet where sectbn is drown s n no. e tdnam PERCETANGE: 11.6% 14.8% 15% ~ s coumn or daNm geld lines I finish nde flag 8 ■f! V ~i u s.ar or roof ekwuion FLOOR AREA EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED buildin seobon wall section g 1 2 72 n. MAIN FLOOR AREA: 2, 95 w n 5 .a A or interior ekvadon number ~ dimereion surfxe m surface A3.1 sheet where segbn i:drawn UPPER FLOOR AREA: - 1,521 an rt. N lot date P TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 2195 as n. 4 248 a n. 4 366 ao n. revisions,cbudaround ~ r dimension m lace of Aud 7/23/2009 6:37:17 PM s rnubn number GARAGE AREA: 543 ao n. 711 ann. 600 sn n. EXCESS GARAGE AREA: 1 ~ ~ .n r<. DATA SHEET Abbreviations TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 4,367 tan. 4,366 attn. PROJECT AREA J LY 09 ab arx:horboh emu concrctemasonryurut ezh exhaust fl8 {oaring kit kitchen od ouuidediameter spb speaker N television BELOW MAXIMUM: 9aan. x aausenl ~ exist existing ga gage, gguswar~ lam laminate Idl os overflow sagrper ssqq square tw top of wall yc airtondltloning c~c cone ezt etlerior gc generalcontrad Ih Idthand pcc precastmnaem sst stainlessueel tYP rypiwl ad area drain corer consbtrdion fau forced air unit gl glass, glaring mss mawrvy pl plate std standard ~ vema~ •xe„t conk conhact (od Poo fumbhed by others glb glue, black max maximum p,l. progeny line str swctur}I , vt vin,yyl fi a~usuble d drain h fire extingwsher grn gramte mb muhine bolt plan plaster susp wspended w/ wM abovefinbhed floe ~ ~n fee fire e#inguulsw nbirtu gr galvarrized meth mxhaninl plywd Plywood scd cee cml engineers drawings w!o without a iluminum elf ddnkingtaonaln fhc firchosenbind gvl gravel ~ met ptc post-tenslonedcaxsete sec seemmeerr~gyynlculatbre s'rc ~cl~ isions hak.. ale alternate dim &menaon the fire fiese station y~h~ ggyyppwsumm board drywall min mbimum r radius sad see strucikril engineer drawings arch uchkxtluraB disp disposal fm finsh tedl fib' tree db mac mncdlaneau rd roof driln tai mngue and groove drawing nun>ber bar dpr damper fltar fluorescent belt header mo muonry opening rd reference m mp of rorb it ' s J C1 bd board ds fk flora ~~m~~ h mrb marble rdr rdd feel of not dam lJ a t, bMg Iwtldirtg tit dru'ndle (rid {oundatan fiar~ mtd mounsed regd regwgred~ tel bfk bksck Avg drawirsg fac iue of column horrz hortaanLl and makdil bl rn rnbion tsl, rnised th top of finislwd surface blkg bbdsing dwr drawer fof face dfinish hvx heating/ventiluiasond nk race in wntsxt rm room tg mP of grade bm be~nccth~ mark n ~ tom face of masonry x air condidonmg nl nigght light ro rou~ opening trig top of raceq~ral grade b.s. bulldingstandard dev ekvamr foe facedsud id imidediartKter rats narmsnle sec srscTan toe mpolsted cb nmh bum ~ e~a~ty taw hce d wall ire ireulate (d), Itiod d over shth sh~lhing tp top d parapet • ceiling eq , Wu~ fegrooi int IMnbr oc oncerrterW aim similar u topdroof dear equip equipment ~pl finplue spec specifiutmn (s) is mP of sheathing 0 1006 Michael D. Fiedanm AL1 i date 19 b,'17.1 zPM / ~ z7.a GRAPHIC SCALE / LEGEND / ' ° ` ' " ' / / 2 FOUND CONC. NAIL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TREE AS INDICATED) / ~ AND TAG L.S. 6649 CONC. NAIL G L.S. 6649 Q ~ ''o.+ JOINT POLE ©2007 _ 166 ROCK HILL ROAD / A.P.N. 039-151 22 ~ ~ / / IN V-DITCH T.W. TOP OF WALL ELEVATION ~ / . -oL- OVERHEAD LINES mis DRAw1NC Is T18URON MARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA / / TCH mE PROPERtt OF 1 Inch = e ~ / O~S~~ ~ / CONCRETE 4j GAS/ELECTRIC METER uwRENGE P. DGYLE scALE: 1" = 10' DRAWN BY: JWR / ,eG~~'~ ~ LAND SURVEYOR / / ' ~IZe.o GRADE BREAK ® WATER METER CIVIL ENGINEER DATE: 12/14/07 LAWRENCE P. DOYLE sHEEr 1 of 1 / c~' / , / 11 - WIRE FENCE MANHOLE AND MAY NOT / / / / 2^0" F PINE I ® BE DUPLICATED LAND SURVEYOR CIVIL ENGINEER \ 7.7 [ , 5TEEL COVER / +t229 K13.9 = o = WOOD FENCE o PIPE & PLUG, L.S. 4694 ~ usEO gym- P.O. BOX 1609 MILL VALLEY, CA 94942 (415) 388-9585 OVER cuLVERy / ~ OUT PERIAISSION DRAWING N0. / \ " EDGE OF PAVEMENT P.U.E. PUBLIC UT1LITlES EASEMENT / ,4.1 ~ / „~.B 1622-07 / „8.7 / ~ R.A.E. RADIAL ANCHOR EASEMENT \ Q SURVEY CONTROL POINT / / • 1119.3 71 \ NOTES / / / \ \ I FOUND 3/4 PIPE / s•, ~ \ 1, ONLY SIGNIFICANT TREES SHOWN AND PLUG L.S.6649 +F Jt~ / 1 \ \ HOUSE LOCATION / f'f,rf;ff'ft~ / 1 ©2007 A.P.039-151-22 2, LOT MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN / tir'ff'flr'f'f~\ \ 1 ''r a.7 7195 puwr,0 IS 718URON WARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA r f ' 1 ' ' ~ 1 \ \ n9• PaaPexn of 3. DATUM IS LOCAL / !z ~ f,f f ';t f' f~7+ f f ~ 11 \ uwm9cE P. DOY,E ScuE 1' = B' DRAMN BY: r f , r + ~ ' f f \ ~ / rff/frr>f r f;itfrtl'l m +ne.7 I uwB su,verOR , r , ` r + r + , , r , A , +,?e~-- ~L oa►,~rn oAiEO4/,9/2007 LAWRENCE P. DOYLE t °F ~ 4. BASIS OF BEARING IS BETWEEN STREET MONUMENTS FOUND IN / ~ , , , , f, r , , f + ~r f r ,r r~~ f , ~ _ \ 1 PE 1 /,rtrr 'fift`~rr, "f'l~`f 1~ ''v ~ `I ~ o~uc~~ LAND SURVEYOR CIVIL ENGINEER ROCK HILL ROAD R 1 R.M. 42. ? ~ ~ ~ 1 ?,t`~ f Fi , , `'!'ff ~ f ,'(~if f ~f 1 f ~A ► - - .1 \ 2 'PINE oR USFD wn,- Y CA 94942 415 388-9585 / 1~ + ' r ' r f ' f 1 r ' , , f i f ' r ' 1 ~ ' , ' (l f f \ \ \ \ P.O. BOX 1609 MILL VALLE , ( ) 5. A.P. 039-151-22 IS LOT 4, 11 R.M. 42. / r + r + ~ , f r + + r + r + f , ~ / \ ~ \ ~ \ OUTPFAl115518N / + tfrl/ >if, ,r, f+f+rr, r,ff fr fl \ /ee \ \ u ORAwr9c N0. 1''~~h`81 i , i~r , i f ' f , f > r , , + f , f ff , ~ ~v v ~ ~ u 1622-HOUSE / 4oe 1 f" fu ' 1 f l f ~ f ~r` f , f f ~ f f f f ' (r l ~ v, ~v~ ~V v. b ~ / ,;~;ifr! 1+ f,f~~f'flff`frl,t,rf \ \ ~ 0 / \ \ \ l o / '~;f(fftfl,r%f'`f ,flif/fftf,ff'f~l,r,(;;tb9.1 `V 1. ~ v 1 1 / Gs 14ffrt,rf, , frf>riY r'(,r,rt,rlr(' ~ \ ,11~ 1 / > r;f;fltffir' ffrf/j~~Y~~1'y,iftrf,fr,r \ ~--,"7/i' \ 'o \ ~2 - rlf~ Dtf+ ~'~'„r~f,if1f'+J,r~ ~0 1 A.P.N. 039 151 21 / ,sifr'ff ft~;f"';rf '~'P'¢ffli v°'!o~ ~ / \ \ 1 / t~, r , \ 1 ,~t+t+ ,err ~ \ / rifl,~llJf(f;~1,';~rflif!" \ / / r~ ~ \ I / ,1,~fr ,f;+ rf,tfrt, 0 ~ / /ie\qn \ \ \ I USE r ! i 1 i ; , i~~ r ~ r + ~ r , ~ 22' PINE n ~ / \ ~ 1 III HO / sF~~;lfi;,'fl lf,r .fo5.9 \ ~ vv T W ~ II / , ~ ,oa, / ,rt,f~r ,f ~ \ I .r / ~it, f+f+. ~ «,05.1 8" \ 'r \ N~ I 1 r 1 • ; , a1o4.9 ~ 10.0 15' RW \ , I I / ; ' f t 1' !,1 r ; GE «104.9 , \ 1 ~ I I I / , r;11 f ~ FED ___---2fE`_- \05.9 \ Quo ,l°.B 1 I I + r f~ WO ~ 1 ~ I I CONCRETE 4/~,,-~'~- \ \ 1 i I I I I V-DITCH / _ + OY.2 ~/p 1 ~ 1 / I j "I I 122.7 / - - 11 ~0B s $ II I I 23 PINE I ' / - ~ / / u - la~ \ r~\ 116",13" CYPRESS I I / ,104' 3B ~ ° it ~ \ 1 loe.a 1 I I - ` „t 04.0- / / ~ ,~(Q~ 99. Q1D1\1 \ 7/~ I i+I rf IN i~ d N ` \ \ Y107.3 T~ pEb/ 7 +,039/ / y ae ° " \ 11',17 CYPRESS`~~~~~ / I I 1 ~ Pte` / w./ / fie. 9 \ ~ \ I I i I 00.3 g• $ ' \ \ '7 , = I ' Iz,.o n '9,c ~ ` \ Og ~ I ~ j i-1 498.9 0 N ! ~ \ . I I I 5 8 \ / i i i ~ .0 / / / SE `°,BLOC DRAT ~ ~ \ /oti ~C4E eas LAWN \ \ I II I I m 22" PINE ~ 10 / , G .9 / ~ ~ ~ / ~ f I / / a B ~ ~ \ `108.2 I / d 3" OAK ~ I ' / +10J.2 , / / 9.2 98.9 S I I I 1221 8• B.7 CONCRETE 4y \ ~ 1 I / . m.e / BLOCK PA110 e e R ' \ I I ~ nB.o ,1 / ! i / ¢ PLANS ~ ~ , I ~~118-~~ 1~J / ror \ }to4a \ t I I 1 / / ~ 3 \ \ ~ \ 1 I / I I 1 i ` 98.B 1 + FOUND 3/4' PIPE / S ~ \ I 11 f AN PLUG LS.6649 / I I / I D HOT ` ~ r104.4 I I/ 1 I / ~ oz.o / TUB \ \ 1 ~ I 1 99.fi ~ I 0 I \ k , + / s• \ ! /,oa2 / «1a0.9 WOOD \ ~ I \ i \ I. / / / 98,8 i DECK ~ +102.4 \ 1 I 11.8 i / / ~ / a9a 1 1 1 n0a 7 ~ ~ 1, / +,033 LAWN EL 99.T \ , f 1 I 1 / i / 1 ~ / \ 1 1 1 1 ~ / / \ I t 1 1 1 ~ /\p1 01 PLANTFR e9., \ I ~ 1 / / / ~ w 1 ~ ~ mt.t 10 a ~ I \ e ~ i ~ / / °4e GARAGE F'F~ \ 1 1% X, / In2a I; l0 11 +Im.B/ F.F. = 98.9' ~ \ 11 11pe., iv / s 99.0 \ / ~ B \ eA.2 LYOO.7 \ \ /ioB.z 1 ~ ~ II / ° , CONCRETE DRIVEWAY STEPS \ \ ~ Z / \ \ , 1 / ory MAIL DB.B Ixm CONCRETE BORDER ~ BoK 98.7 / ~I CATCH +9as \ \ I ~ ` \ \ v +ns.t +102.5 BASIN o PLAN117t 00.0 \ \ / i $ / 1 / r ~ \ rI / v u 8.0 8 ~ ~ 1, 1 ~ % +98.5 \+98.8 m' +110.7 1 .9 o \ 3 B ~ 96 - \ ~ 1 \ ~ 1 o ~ i 1 - \ A 8- \ 1 - 41 1 L 73, -9 _ _ 1 a _ , 98, o ~ wooD 98.1 _ X5'50`30" ~ _---tB40 DECK CYPRESS .e7~_-`__-- --98' 1 ; +,08.81 ~ I , / ~-LAWN eae `b 8• f>b .1 ` 1 \ N 1` ~ i - / Y~Q LAWN ~ ' e ~ p99.o \ ~ ~ R 720.00 / ~ +97s 97.9`. e~\ / EL 98.8' o \ 1 \ ~ 1 I 1 ~ u 'Q_ \ a ~g 7.6 B 98.1 +97.5 ~ -+100.3 ~ ~ / 1 •0~ ° STEPS ~ \ \ , 7/23/1009 6:57:50 PM / CONCRETE B.7 Q975 ~ . 0' TOP \ / qP ~,o \ 1 Iy i ' WALKWAY e.e ~ 9''• ~ \ , qS, \ 1+114.2 )9 6:57:50 PM ~ \ ~ ~ \ R / I ~ 8.3. 1y 3 «97.1 Q ~°0 Oi , \ \ 100.) / ro ~ POLE " cy ~ T - \ \ + 'o ~ \ / % ~ s.3 ANCHOR ~ + _ ~ ~ ~ Q/7 a ~ ~c` 9s.a u~ TOP - \ ~ , / GYM B e ~ 7\ 9 11 - , C. ~9~ + \ SURVEY OF ~ ~ ~ , WEY OF o• ~ \ ~ \ \I RECORD i C!"!l D 1'1 !y ~ ~ i , ,'ff'l+ri'fffJl~ v J ///~~J ~ ,~r,<r4~~11r~fl;r~i,: f 1~ - i' I i ,r,rr>r r ,i r ,i, rl,r,'~lrf ir, +7r1+' f.'.e,'F,! r \ j / +,frf 'r`ri ~ f,r, rl,t '1' r 41 ,rrrrl rl,rl+7r , rt, ++1+ , :f. r,rl, i O % P I 111~l;fff lftr ,r r,l ,'!>rf+f, F'fif rf~ff frl,rf'f r'f fl firf .f, rf r!'fr frf". ,rt,7, 103.9 98.8 - - rr,i„ ,r,rr ,r„efff'r, ,rr f,f'ffffrr,r,rt+ ,'f,f 'ftf,! r, r,f/r, 1 ~ , ,r rr,rl r rrr r ,rr ~r~-. ~ I 4p , ~ 9 „ r1rf,~rir 'lll,r,r rrr, r,rt,r,rfrr+'lrfr 1, rrr 4x1,1, .+-r< 'lrr, F` i O / ~e 11 ~ . ;1f I-r f , f , . ~ . ~c ,.r_, ,1 .r_f i.t - ~ ~ • SEA 44 176.00' ~y ~ / +90.4 r N41'18 00"W / ~ - By ~j ~ / L9 _ ~ ...e ~ 933 I I ,Q . I i / s ~a 10' P.U.E. / _ ..r-----~-------- - i - ¢ «90.3 I,p,NDSCAPEO- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a~~ STONE - 9o.e 992.9 cG ~ / a J/ PATIO" " FOUND 3/4" PIPE • RB % / Ati A.P.N. 039-151-23 / 0 AND TAG R.E.11629 i OC / G~` / / pJ 929 / a g ~ I ;1.0 STOFIYPOLELEGEND 8'-d HEIGHT / MICHAEL iAEL LEGEND NORTH ~~,n / HECKMANN ELEVATION ELEVATION MATCH EXISTING / ~ CMANN 8YM Ll~Vl81T FFA~AIN ELEVATION LOCATION DESCRIPTION 8YM L~lVOEML ArAFAIN ELEVATION LOCATION DESCRIPrWN O TREE (AS INDICATED) -OL- OVERHEAD LINES , / AIZCt;ITE{r~l' T.W. TOP OF WALL ELEVATION ~ GASiELECTRIC METER / / / ~ 19 1 a-0' 109.a NOR1TiWE8T CORNER ®QARAOE 86 21'-a 120.0' SOUTHWE8T CORNER @ UPPER LEVEL STEEL / / `I / / / ~Cy OVER CULVERT coNCREre ® WATER METER / / / +~r R~ANBmON 120 MAIN STREET 2 21'•0' 120.a NORTHWEST CORNER 0 UPPER LEVEL 9 2g-!' 122.6' SOUTHEAST CORNER ®ENTRY ® e'-IY HEIGHT TIBURON GRADE BREAK / ~ CALIFORNIA 8 21'-a 120.a NOR'iHWE8T CORNER 0 UPPER LEVEL 10 22'-a 121.0' NORTHEAST CORNER @ ENTRY 0 wPE a PLUG, LS. 4884 / / / / / p~RIpOpL ~ 94920 4 10'•a 109.a NORTMNEBT CORNER @ LOWER LEVEL 11 22'-a 121.0' NORTHWEST CORNER @ ENiRY - x vmRE FENCE P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITIESEABEMENT / / ~ 415 435 2446 / r RIHEAST CORNER LOWER LEVEL 12 tg•S' 122.0' SOUTHVilEBT CORNER ~ EN7RY 20' FALLEN 9 10'•a 109.a NO ® = O = wooD FENCE R.A.E. RADwLANOHOR EASEMENT / / / ~ w BTREE I rr EDGE OFPAVEMENT / / ~ p 0 21La 12o.a NORTHEAST CORNER @ UPPO1 LEVEL 19 10'•0' 109.0' SOUTHWEST CORNER! GARAGE / / ~ I r0 SURVEY CONTROL PDINT / / ~ \ w 7 21'-a 120.a 80tTT11EA8T CORNER 0 UPPER LEVEL T4 1a-a tD9.a NORTHWEST GARNER Q GARAGE / / z ~ JOINT POLE REALIGN / ~ p PROPERTY / / ~ LINE FENCE / / / / s, ~ EIOSTIANO GRADE ELEVA710N LOCATION DESCRIPTION / / / / a / / ~ / NaTES 19 4'-a 97.6' SOUTHWEST INiERSEC110N W! DE~i FENCE / / / / \ ( / + / / 1.ONLY SIONIFlCAM TREES SHOWN 1S g.b' 97.0' QNEAREST POINT FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY / / / / ~r / \ I / / % ~ ~ 2. l0T MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN 17 a-e' 97.6' SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION W/ DEER FENCE (E) TREES / r / wNE U~l TO BE / / / / r / 3. DATUM IB LOCAL REMOVED / V H 4. BASIS OF BEARING IS BETWEEN STREET MONUMENTS FOUND IN / ,m G'4 POOL C-0UIP. / } / rr I ROCK WLL ROAD PER 11 R.M. 42. ~c ENCLOSURE / / LOWER SILL 121.1 9 ~ W14'-p' TALL / / ~ r~ L 5. A.P, p3&151.2215 LOT 4,11 R.M. 42. 1'OP:124.T ~ SOIJD BOARD / / / 0 ~ FENCE / / A r .f B / / 1 A / / '`i TOR N HOUSE / A3D -7]06 W F.F. = 1 dd.d / / , / ~ I U / UpP~ I WINDOW / / LOWER SILL: 121.1' / I + / 27 wN EE Z I TOP: 124.T / / TO BE I W NOTE. THIS RIDGE IS ADJACFM / !.I REMOVED\ W O NOT THE HIGHEST RIDGE I / T I ~ N RESIDENCE / I 1 i' TREE I 1 RED I / / ./i TO BE R OVED TO B RE D ~ / p r° ~ Q V I / rr\ J / , `LOT I 3' PI E In W J Q~ i / 4 / B'-D' HEIGHT / / ~ / 8.5 + E R W f 1 LAND CAPE soup BOARD / ~ ~ aI = ~.I NOTE: REFER TO S wooD / k / / / \ DRAWINGS FOR SITEWORK & MATCH EXISTING / : ` ~ r (n ~ Z / / ~ ~ PLANTING DETAILS. / ' ~ 86 e s+ T~ SPA V H Hi / I (r,' ' 1p O HORIZ. SIDING / 41 _ TO BE 8 O / 84 REMOVED I'. WOOD FENC / 8.5 / , - / ~ 13' EE W o s~ To BE GATE WISELF-CLOSING, / ~ ~ CO SELF-u1TCHINO & / " ~.~r ' ~ PAT10 (E) r 8 e• REMOVED LOCKA9LE HARDWARE / VEG~~ ~ 1AEES TO BE T i r+~+ ~ I"'~ / !pr,RC~ '`°y>. ~3 REMOVED G N M r / / .r'; 1n Ar ~ . , w -r - ~ I 6 a .r 1 wN I . rv 1 ' + I 14'X38' / / / BM98 ~,,.e". ' POOL W / / oo - (N) COLgJ3FD 2b~ 1 1 1 \ / ....C@NC,'RET. 1 BLUESrONE AUTO li¢ / 81 I1 WALL I 1 1 ~ PA NG TYP. / / ~ 1 / / 3d I (N) RESIDENCE 1 / / I F.F.EL.•D.D I 1 1 COPING 1 1.0+ ~ ~ / / / Q ~ 1 (N) RE NDENCE 11 i 8'.O') VI ~ BUILD G I 1 LINE OF ROOF / / / / 1 1 ~ OUTLINE 1 ~ ~ ~Ol t OVERRAN(` / ~ _ - I 1 ABOVE,TYP. l0 27 JULY 09 ~ / 1 I 1811 1 I 1 ~ , \ 814 ; ~ 1 i i .-~'1 1 TwliD.o PLANNING SUBMITTAL / 11 I I 1 t ~ 1 \ a'-p' 1 t 1 w ~ 1 ~ i w revisions / ! 1 1 1 § I 1 1 STAN 1 I > D 1 I t 1 I 1 v~ no. dattlname CA1CM 1 N 1 ' '11 t ~ I 1 BASIN W I 1 1 ~_r---...--"(~~ 1 I 1 TORE 0^' i 1 ~ t ~9 I LWE OF 1 ( D REf. 1\ 1 812 1 ~ DEdc 1 +10093 w I ~ ` ~ 1 7'CYPRES6 ABOVE 1,1f7 J,Q I ~ T ~I~ Q I TO 8E TWI03.6 X04 ~ ISH i ' ~l 1 REMOVED 1 - ~ 1 I 97.8 813 4 nn .o OA NG, \ 88 1 ~ ~s Noe, -rr'~~ ~ ° lot date T ~ ` ~ ° N P 1 ~ ° D ' JIB ~ , 9' FLOWERING WN ° \ ~ .7 PLUM TREE TO REMAIN c \ ,O ~ TREWS W! 97.8 ~ I r ~ JIB DOWNLIOHTNG / O J ~ ' (SHOWN T-d i' F NG 4'-0' MAX. HEIGHT 84'.r g8' ~ I pASHED) Iw-UMTR wALLw14r x, _ • 70 REMAI 817 fN) HE SITE PLAN 3T-4 ~ 89' TOP OF WALL _ Oa W00 'r +iW 97.5 - ~ ~ : e. ro - \ M N ~ ~ D BIRC}I 9~ + 16 b 'p ~ I I 0 ~ - I D ~ a L 9 'T araM; number ¢ HORRESIDING I 'OWICIUPOD ~ R6U6 ~ D 9b ® 2 VV000 FENCE iu GALLON, TYP. I PROPERTY LINF (N) e'-D' HEIGHT WOOD ~ 4 A ,(j• FRAMED DEEWp00L FENCE .o B P y%' , i` WMTTL. MESH SCREEN A3.1 Q 81EP8 ~ SITE PLAN 1!8'=i'-0' - - - lgsravePATH • 1 ~ ~ ADJACENT (E) PAT10 ~ HOT I p~lpg,~ TU6 ~ IRRIGATION BOX 0 7 W6 Michael D. Fkclanann AU f / f MICHAEL -iAEL HECKMANN >'~RC'NiTFCT 12o MAIN STREET TIBURON CALIFORNU 94920 415 435 2446 ' rf~ ~ ~•s rla7~ ~ ~ Lendirepaarchlrecture s C ~ ~ b.:~ 1 ? wax.waaecemn ast,t f.. ; +r~+ : 3 & H9ked r £ i 3sl Hdwl CA D6➢01 r,,,,, i s a+s ess nxs s 11 2 . .......w•~ .w. r~... r:a1un~:..,exvi: ~ ..w:.nav.n-.x...--.. MO Lk ICY f 'MEE! • N.. . i . : i ( i ~ i t ~ ) . yy j r t I 4 { . t ' 3 ~ ~ • . . I, ~ ' ; i : i ,o SEEM i :y 1 { ~ 1 W r S~ $.x.,•:s:~_ ~a 1. ( l . ~ v , a ~ I , , ""s Z ; i i I ~ r ~ W • _ . I : 1 _ 'k . • - i ~ is ~ ~ ~ : . f ~ ~ ~ I I £ ~ ~ ~ . ( ~ • ~ ~ :ii • ,i i- ' ~Y W ~ Q _ _ i i ~ ~.z. U ~ T . : , ag.cc n w r .<:,,:r:: > L I i p ; ' ; i m y ,,~s, ~ r ' ; ~ f ~ , ff 2i I • 1 : , ` Mp: F t ,,.k... V. I I } I I~&yira~>S i • fi , .t ~ : , , M fi' r ~ t ~ W i.A7-,.`}„`a iAn, jI ,i~hQ!'. ~ ~C~ : W I• I - `f't~?.>.to.. •i&'ds~ I t 2F , 'M S. I ~ I t..r r ~ ~ .::y. .y). r ~ I s ` i Vie' 3 ? r ~i~%~~* :~:..;r.. ~ fir{` I t { ff -f,• f &KYLIOHi WITH ~ ~ £ f 1 : I PaanPEr, I , i i ~ t j~CY^.: ~ , I w~.,... ~ i ~ , ~ o • r,, ' J ~ ,n ~ .u . , . , ~i".: 1 ~ c'. I t .,u~ f I. ~ ~ .;i F 3 0, ~~~r i . ~ I fi't':. x,:-' . ~ .r'~... ~ ' i . la :.~.:r E 3s8 r•>A < y ~r I xyi t x p,. i~'~ ' • ' r PLANNING SUBMITTAL , . ~ ; , ~ .w,; 4 ~ revisions : r no. ;:i E z k. ~ 3 i , • W' :i i , r r ~ z ~ 3 i li~lark ` r' • t L 1 t t ~ i # , ~ ' t ( ~ J i I i plot date i iQ^va ,L'•~%~~'` 1 ;~``-y'~ r oss ~I !..;,,i 7/23120096:48:57 PM •q :~~y• ~ 1 .,Z M....... ,~,.._..,.,W.~r. ti_S ANEW' Y t TRUE PROPOSED NORTM' FLOOR & l~ ROOF PLANS PROJECT NORTH dnwl~nuillher f PROPOSED ROOF PLAN ,re•=r-D• PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL ,re•=,-o• PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL ,re•=~~-a 3 ~ 2 ~ 1 DB8 FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN -77 0 7006 Midixl D, HKkmxn ,W i ~ Z I _ MICHAEL IAEL HECKMANN (MANN ,~~r..~1T~r. r WCHTFCT 120 MNN STREET TIBURON CALIFORNIA 94920 415 435 2446 Aeder~rrAsxodefse M.1 ICf1DA1L Landscape Archhegwe MOer Jane PeEOroM ASU N S6ee' Ys~ Hage! CA 54901 pus rs a:• +U rY liiV f IL=ty rk W U z W o ~ N ~ ~ . ~ d' ~ ~ W ~Q w~-U _ _ . ~~~[Z UQ 0~ w ~m m~~ m , ~ RAT ROOF WI ALUM. C CHANNEL MIN. 1Ir PER Fr. E%PAWSION JOIIVI', TYP• 27 JULY 09 SLOPE, TYP. SNCCO E>(TERIOR FlNISH, TYP. _4 PLANNING SUBMITTAL ~ IX3 ,i . . J revlslons , _ ~ y n J Lu j I ~ ~4 I ~ - I , 108.0 _ _ ~ 9'.-0° ~ t: x - ~ ~ J Q ~ ~ : , _ w t- we V b ~ ,.I I c''. ~ i lot date t ~l -7 w ~ ' ; j ~ 6.-r-,~mo ~ 7/23!2009 6:51:15 PM I LINE OF (Q NOTE: STONE 1 r l ~ ] OAAAOE (E1 BUILDING VENEER I `''`:`:ft:~ RN. R.R =+100', REFER TO i PROPOSED =W l Yip- Dwo. c,.o I SITE { S SECTION B-B 1 SITE SECTION B-B ,re~=,~~ d~^~ 1 D~ JULY 09 JG SUBMITTAL 0 2006 Michel D. Hedomnn AU dabwnwm MICHAEL HAEL HECKMANN PLANTING LEGEND LIGHTING LEGEND KMANN SYM80LS nESCRIPTION QUAN. h1ANUF. r'titi,:;}{~':'g(;~' TREES:3b".B.OX,14".BOX&iS. GALLON + ARBUTUSUNEDO.(Straxberrytr+~)•2ri'ta1620'wide RUBBERTR[LTIES ~ DOW`NLIGHT E; TBD 120 MAIN STREET iAIN STREET LO1X;E POLE PINP SI:AKFS Z"-3" DIA. ~ - STEP/WALL LIGHT 5 T8n 'IKEA)' WICOPPER NAI'1'HFN.4'IF TIBURON LOCAT'F(mWIND1v.ARDSIDEO]•1hFF \y ~ P(70L1SPALIGHT 3 TBD CALIFORNIR ~At o BETULAPENDULA(EumpeanWhiteBirch)-.RI'fz11,15'widc \ 9492Q (24 Fk") _ n GRILL TASK LIGHT 7 TBD 415 435 244b PLANTCROIV'N ~ ~ 1"?" AB01'E GRADE ~ z Z 0 0 + LACFRSTROEhIIASpp.(CrapcAlyrtlr)-2U'ta11,211'widc % ~ e / 2 ~-BERM 41'ATER[NG BASIN - \ .i t7 ANDUVERLAYW1iUTEMESH ~ \ •~'c - / PWxanAswaalea -fIN1511GRADC \ ~ ~ yTFNCE Gndswfr ArtfidMa~ _ / ~ (m PLANTERS ~ ~ '0 / TRANS(CION Peda.Jers Pedersen AS[A +9 PL57ACIACHWEN515(Cltiru~xPi~tach+) 35'ta11,3U'wid+ , i ~ ~ ~ / 20'PALLENPWF ~ iREETOBE % ¢exsuea KEh10VED I I SenReled ca sosov ROOT BALL ` i .:i>~, ~ % ~ .v .sa azro .:1f ~ - I SCRFENSHRQ$$_$_,{'rALLQN ~ \--PREPARED BACK FILLMIS~--~../ LI' GREWL1000IDENTALIS (Lavender Star Fluteet) • 71a11, T tide ~ r i- ° ~ ii SOLID BOARD-) / rwrrv w ~n ~ W /-t 1D5 FERTILIZER TABLETS WOgD FENCE / I wa.s a, rr-+ Pf1TOSPORUAtTENUIFOLWMVmiegata(Itittosp<mam)•lUtall,6't+ide(maintai%d) \ 2PER5GAL. - a T'ODOCARPL'S GRACILIOR(Fern Pme) • 10 WD, lU wide (maintuned) TO h1ATCH FX(STIN 6 PALL RIIAhWUSCALIFORNIC.4 C°(feeBe -9'tall B'wide \ 3PERISC.4L. ( ny) 2XDIAMFTFR ~ ~ IDLER FE\C[ }IETEROMELESARBUTIFOLIA(foyrnt)-6'ta116'wide UFRQO'fBALL \ / % UNDISfURBF.DS"OII. / J ~I SHRUBS&ME0111M.1'ERRENTALS, ( ~ % ?INES:5.Bc1GALLON-3!-4'.TALL6c.N7AE 2xD1AMETER ,o / '~8 AGAVE ATTENUATA'NOVA'(ASave) OFROOTB:ILL / ~ ~ e V-DITCH Y+ $ I GRFx Spp. (Swig 1 j / ® ~ , 1 CORREA 'IVORY BELLS' (Aushalian Fuchtia) n1FTLSS .(Frxtn;~,t1d•) TREE & SHRUB PLANTING ~ I pp ~1 } ~ 'W~' HELICfOTRICHO}LSEhiPERVIRFNS(BlueOatGra.~) W `-MP HARDENDERGIA VIOLACFA (Coral Pca) ~ j'. LAVEN'nULAANCUSTIFOLIA([av+mder) SLOPE CONDITIONSH04Y'NDASHFD NOSC.ALE ~ I / _ U LOROPGTALUM Spppp. (Utmp<~talum) 2T' PWC TREE / ~ - - NANDWADOMESTK'A (Heavenl ~ Bamh<o) TORE REMOVED ~ ~ ~ 23" INE + ! PHORMIUMSpppp (N¢wZealandFla~) / \ 1 ViESTRTNGIAPRUTICOSAIC°a<tRacertwry) / ~ l I'. Q (E)TREFS ~ + 1 % r-+ GRO[>s1D..COVERS&LO.N[.eERRENIALS:.LGALLON To DE REMOVED ~ Q~ ARCTOSTAPHYLLOSSpp.(bLmtaniWl ~ ~ I CEANOTEIUS Spp. (CaliEocaia Litac) ' ~ o ~ G.4N5 flea anA (:hicks / / \ _ ~i ~ \ El:HE\FRIAFLE ( ) ~ ~ ~ \ o ~ ~ r , S HHLCHERASpppp.(CoralBulla) (N)POOLEQUIP. ~ ' ~ U HYPERICUMBLAND(JL{ohnaw°rt) F1'CIDSURF/` y \ ~ T'REDWOOD ~ ,n,.,•r I I', 11'14'-0"TALL ~ `TOREh'IAW w a j 1-~ ~J 50LID BOARD FENCG ..'tc4- ~ ~ . ♦ W H H ~ / \ b 1' x o - 1 x •L ~ AD1.4CFNT ~ + 6' t... / ~ E-+ ~i RESIDENCE / % ~ ~ 1 / i 'I f, _ 1 ~~i I. U / F\ ~ - 7'I" OAK TREP ,,y(:'r i Y (E)'IS' REDTV00D [""I \ 1'U BL RLMOVEll TO BE i~.I 9 ~ 1 0 !i ' , , n R MOVED E _ I i TOT LOT-' EREMOVED W ~ PLANTING NOTES 1 PLANTING SHALL BE PLRFORMED BY PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH THIS T1PE OF VVC7RK .4ND ti' SOLID BOARD-, ~ 9AS + UNDER TIIESUPL•RVLSIONOFA UALIPIEDPLANTINGFOREMAN. V ,;:~:j ~ ~ j I ~ Q 1 OODFENCE M -STAKEORGUYTRELSPERDETAILS. 70hLITCHEXISTiNG / M + "j' ' ' I F+~ -LOCATIOVOFFLA\TMATERIALSSHALLBEADJUSTEDTOSCREENMETERS,UTIL[fY . ~ ~ , - 6IBACK 1 STRUCTURES,ETC.,YFT TO ALLOW ACCESS AS REQUIRED. TIVI(ii>, SPA i -GENERAL PURPOSEBACKFILLADXTODESU~ON-51TEOR1'viPORTEDTOP501L,511~~,.APPROVED / F ~ ,"t (E)TREES ,;:.1 tth I 88Q ~ I SOIL Ah1ENDMENT. / - _ n HOR17..SID1N(~-. +8W96.5~ \ COUNTER TO BE ~ I Mf TO E50',IMPORTEDTOPSOIL517'~ ( REh10VFD ~ 1~ 22"PINE -BACKF(LLh11XAFPLANTSWITHACIDSOILREQUIREME S B m ~-(E)^',Y'7REE5 TOREM4IN N'(X)D FFNCF ;I. TW 10~ SPHAGNUM PEAT MOSS. CONC~ ~ TOBEREMOVED ' -PLA\T PITS SHALLRECEIVE'AGRIFORb120•I(ISPLAMINGTABLETS"OREQU.4LINTHE T ~ ~ tt FOLLOWING A I ~ : }PATIU 1-- ~ , Q11 NITTES / TWl(xl-~ \ 130AK11(EE 11 ~ ~1 ( - ~v" TODEREM01'ED ~ 1 1 GALLON STOCK -1 TABLET V i.'. ~ J 5G4LLONSIOCK-21A8L815 / llP. L ~ ' 15 GA[ f ON S70CK • 3TABLF,TS 8VV96. - I ' BO B )(7 ''C4'N-51ABLEI5 y. (N)COLORFD 1 f I; X, ARE RC 1SlE L1E / j' CP ~ __-(:ONGREI. WALL I j - I OVER}LANG-~ _ ~~~/r-_. -DLSTRIBUTETABLETSEVENLYWPLANTPITAFTERPARTIALLYBACKY[LLWG. ( VEGETABLECARDLN I (SHOWNDASHEDI I` -GROUND COVER AREASSFt4LLBEFERTiLIZEDPRIORTOPLANTINGW'ITH"AGRIFORMI&i+in / -1 1 ~~k ~ ~ rLAWN~ 147(36' UREQUALAITWFLIEPOUNUSPERTI{OUSrWDSQUr1REFEF"T. / r ~ 'GAT@ 1 I BROADCASTFERTIllZEREVENLYANDW'ORKT11C1ROUG}ILY'INTOTID:TOPTI{REEINC}IESOF ( 18LUESTONEPAVTMp-' 1 ALfTOCOVER 1.. 1 soa. /f' TCDLORED& _ (N)ItLSIDENCI; II ~ coPWGlin.n+ ~ ' I -TREAT ALL PLANTING AREAS WCI'HAPRE-FMERGENTHERBICIDEINACCORDANCEWffH 1 ~ SCOREDCON~REIL I l MANUFACTURER55PECIFICAT70NS ~ ~ F.F.E.I..99.0 1 ~.1.. ~ 1 .4 Z"1.,4YFR OF REGROUND REDWOOD BARK MUICHSHALL BF INSTAi.LEDAROUND AI,L ~ ! I I r' o... ~ fEVI SI011S PLAN7TNCS. HOLD6"AW.AYFROMSTF.hIC)RTRUNK. I' L''' 1 -,'1' I ~ ~ dawawtre \ I -T11E CUMI RACi'OR S}L4LL GU.ARAM'EE PLANTED 5T(X K FOR A 3U DAY h141N PENANCE `f ~ ~ III FOOT PRINT OF J I '1 1 ' I 2 ORB RES 09 l YER[OUAFIYRFWALACC;LYIAN(:EBY'1}fECWNER. ~ 1-, 1 . - (E)RFSIDENCE _ ~ UB 7/1/ •BiRIGAiIONSYSTEMTOBEAFULLYAUTONIATIC,LOWGALLONAGEDRIPSYSTEMWITH l ' SHOWNDASHGDI ' CYRF55 ACCENT PA\WG (N)STAWLDCONC, , , t ~ d 3 DRBRESUB. 1/24/09 COhtPLETE WATER PROTECTION. LAWN AREASTO RECEIVE POP-UP SPRAY TYPE HEADS. ~ ' ~ y!- ( f0 BE REM01 ED 1 ` 1; RET. N'ALL SHRUBAREASTORECENEEM]TFERTYIsETRRIGATIONIYIIERESPAI"1NGALCOVYS. ~ t"' EN1RY'GA7F~TREILIS _ rll'FL04YERINGPLUMTREE 11 DN (E)PODOCARPUS ~ ' -LAPInSCAPELIGHTWGTOBEREf_ESSED0R5fEPTYPEFIXTIIRES,CNiH00DEDGARnEN , ` ~ W/WWNLIGII'(1NG r'- IL ~1' ~ TOl2EblAW I I TREES TOREM.4W ~ I F1XTLIRFSBY'LUMINATRF'ORNAIX;O.THEI.ANDSCA~TOG BNWG NDFPl1MTNGWITH I ~ ~':^3~~~CA- ~ I TRELLIS WID04VNLIGHTWG-~ II 9"PLON'ER(NGFLUM'I'REE 1 ' ~ r' -J ~ ~ '~~''1VY110.U LEIELWNATLRE,D[RECTLDWVI'NN'ARD,WASHWG r ~ ~ r I +10II.93 TWll.6' ~ I NOEXPC6EDL,1hD'S. h'~'~ 1 (SHONNDASHF,nI I TOREh,.4W~ I +94U ~ --99.0+ - r ' WOODRET. - - fi • 1 \ 1 _ - I C)N \ ® WALL i., ~ - I _ , t' - _ f , 1~' . - - _ _ I _ ° ~ . ~ - ' / ~ v r '-h P ,il.`1 J ,;Jt:- +4R.% ~ / \ T1.,4W"•J~ ° I +47.6 i 1 8% ) - 1 _o„ 1 ~ +9i3 Ir4'0'TALL ~~4\ ~ ~ - 6'HC RIZ. SIDING I b._,.4 I 1 I'WALL h1AX. ' . _ - _ . ~ ~7,-;~ Y 1v00DFENCE I ~ 1 - - y ~ - __~,IV'14Z"GUARDRAIL ` I / - _ / / ON70POFW.4LL 'y _ _ _ ~ . ~ ~ +7,ti'9,5 I LANDSCAPE - h . _ H S I N PLA I j + _ - "DEERIPOOL ' a _ ~ _ ~ , o ~-1 IFLNCE I - , r 4 / ~ ~(E) GRADE / / _ N V BLDG. - - I ° 1 N , _ - - - ~ ° u (N) PODOCARPUS'GRAULIOR (EISTONEy / In 9" - ° ~ ]SC,\LLON-TYP. W.ACL •~(F.)IRRIGAT70N :i / ~ _ ~ : c: BOX _ w (EISTONE SCAI,F: l "=10'-O'~ Sl ADJACENT PATH RFSIDFNCF- (E) PATK) v 0 2 17 MichnJ 0. lir~clnunn AW a"