Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2009-09-02 (3)~J C_ Q 7C f/It I I Tiburon Town Council September 2, 2009 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Robberts Residence, 166 Rock Hill Dear Councilmembers: My wife Julie and I and our children reside on Rock Hill above and to the side of the proposed project. The photo I enclosed shows our front view. Every night we have a beautiful view of the Golden Gate Bridge, and to the left a wooded hill that is currently dark at night because none of the downhill neighbors have large uphill windows. This photo also shows where the Robberts' second story would be--against that dark hill. On their side wall facing us will be a window almost a full story high and approximately 45 square feet, about the size of two French doors. The problem is that this window opens onto the entire first and second floors of the Robberts' ceremonial space and every night will emit light from all those areas. The window is not necessary to illuminate any room; the building's two-story glass facade more than takes care of that. It will not afford a view--it is set too high. In fact this window is just a ceremonial design feature, but one that every night will spill the combined light from several rooms into our sightline toward the Golden Gate Bridge. The blight will be even more pronounced because it will stand out against an otherwise dark hill. And because this window draws light from so many sources, it pretty much guarantees the pollution will be constant even when one room or another is dark. Basically, an unnecessary 45-square-foot uphill beacon. We expressed these concerns at all three Design Review hearings. We suggested solutions such as louvers, tinting, shading, recessing or angling the window or the wall. The Design Review Boardmenbers declined to adopt any of these. All they did was determine that the window contains no hanging light, although it will still have multiple ceiling downlights. It would be one thing if this window was necessary for illumination or a view, but it isn't--it is simply a decorative feature. It doesn't seem fair to us that a non-essential feature should be allowed to spill 45 square feet of unnecessary light uphill and permanently blight our view of the Golden Gate Bridge--4he most desirable feature of our property. The residents of Rock Hill have a good history of meeting halfway on design projects. The Flahertys downscaled their remodel to preserve the Smith's bridge view. The Laceys stepped back their upper floor even though it meant losing their bridge view. We located our porch over a parking lot rather than have it loom over the Laceys. And none of the neighbors has outdoor lights or large windows shining upward at their neighbors...... except this one. It is out of character, unnecessary and unfair. The Design Review Board required significant revisions of this project's retaining wall, but did nothing to correct the negative impacts of this window. There are many sensible ways to modify it that would have no material impact on the overall project, and we ask that you require them. i Sincerely yo , Ian and Julie Pearson 170 Rock Hill c~ THOMAS C. LACEY 168 ROCK HILL DRIVE LATE MAIL # TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 September 2, 2009 Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard S EP - 2 2009 Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN CLERK Re: File 709052, 166 Rock Hill Drive Approval for Construction TDWN OF TIBURON Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are the appellants in the above referenced Application for a new home at 166 Rock Hill Road. We have worked with the applicants since April and our representative has worked with their representatives since June. We originally met with the Robberts in March to review some preliminary, conceptual plans. At that time we expressed concern about the size and location of the proposed home. In April, temporary story poles were erected for 30 minutes one evening to present the placement and illustrate outline of the design of the new dwelling. The Robberts requested that the design be signed off at that time. We again expressed our concerns about the placement of the house. In June the Robberts submitted a design to the City for approval, including erecting story poles to illustrate the scope of the proposed construction project. One month later the height of the story poles was increased two and one-half feet. The plan included setting the first story of the new home 10 feet back from the current structure. We appreciate this consideration. The improvement in our view resulting from the setback is mitigated by the increased height of roof of the library, which is not depicted by story poles. The Robberts have offered to lower the roof height by one foot, which is appreciated. Subsequently one bedroom window on the second story was moved from the north elevation to the west elevation to afford us more privacy, which we also appreciate. When we remodeled our house and added a second story, the addition was placed well to the east to protect the views of our uphill neighbors, at the expense of our water views. In addition, the second story was set back from the southern edge of the house to afford more privacy for the downhill neighbors. We are asking for the same consideration from the Robberts that we provided for our neighbors. At the request of the Design Review Board and the downhill neighbors, a substantial amount of work has gone into the redesign and relocation of the retaining wall to create separation between the Robberts and downhill neighbors and improve their privacy. The change has resulted in a substantially larger back yard, lawn and pool area to the east of the proposed structure as depicted in the Robberts plan L -1, DRB resub. 07/24/09 versus the original plan dated 07/01/09. The view blockage created by the current placement of the Robberts home does impact and reduce our view of the Bay, Marin Headlands and Sausalito to the south, which we have enjoyed for 29 years. The story poles, and the ribbons that were added last Wednesday, August 26, 2009 depict this. While the set back of the new structure opens our view to the southwest, it does not mitigate the blockage by the two-story portion of the structure from the master bedroom and family room and is in conflict with Goal 3, Principal 7(D) of the Hillside Design Guidelines. In addition, we will see the light of the large ceremonial window located at the southern corner on the west side of the structure at the top floor. The light spill from this window will be visible from our ceremonial rooms on the first floor as well as from master bedroom as we lie in bed looking out the front windows. All of this can be mitigated by relocating the proposed home eight feet to the east to minimize the reduction to our views to the southeast. This can be accomplished easily and without great expense given the addition of retaining walls and relocation of the pool, which affords ample space in the rear yard. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, t~ Ann and Thomas Lacey David and Jean Pelfini 160 Rock Hill Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 September 2, 2009 TOXIN COUNCIL Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard LATmE . WMIAIL Tiburon, CA 94920 MEETING DATE Re: 166 Rock Hill Road Dear Members of the Town Council, We live at 160 Rock Hill Road, on the downhill side of 166 Rock Hill Road. We are pleased with the plans that were approved by the Design Review Board in August, as they pertain to our property. The agreement between our two families came as the result of many meetings and negotiations. We feel that our privacy and the open feel of our backyard are preserved with the approved plans. We have not properly studied the impact of the approved plans on the view from the Lacey's property and have no comment on that matter. We understand that in their appeal, the Laceys propose a shift in the Robberts new residence towards the back of the hill. Although we have not received any information on their proposal, we believe that the proposed shift may adversely impact our privacy from our master bedroom, family room and backyard. We ask your consideration in maintaining our privacy when listening to the appeal presentation tonight. Thank you, Jean Pelfini David Pelfini S E P - d 2009 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re.: 166 Rack Hill Drive Appeal Dear members of tree Tiburon Town Council., Trais letter is to address the issue of the l.,acey appeal, parts of the Robberts letter of August 26, 2+ 09 and the statfreport dated September 2, 2009. Mr. mid Mrs. Lacey have requested during the hearing relatively minor revisions to the Robberts plan as follows: 1. To slide the proposed residence 9' east, thus maintaining the main feature (Sausalito and the Sausalito waterfront) of the view from their master suite, the most frequently obserw•ed view of the residence. 2. To lower the proposed library roof approximately 3' (this roof has never been showwm by story poles), thus maintaining the main feature, S~-3usalita and its waterfront, from the windows of the family root-.,. (the 42 bedroom where computer garnes, music and videos are watched.) 3. To maintain a 60' section efthe fence between the properties approximately as is. The fence crosses the property line at an angle. The areas on each side of ferret; are about equal. This is more usable to the Laceys in an a:: ea they have traditionallY enjoyed in their back yard and more usable space for the Robberts that they have traditiona'ly enjoyed in their fiont yard. The Robberts letter makes the following statemcntts, which do not convey the correct situation: 1. The proposed design "will provide a much improved view to the Laceys from their primary living space and ceremonial rooms. In doing so, we have compromised our own primary view corridor," FACTS: The proposed design does not change the Lacey view from primary living spaces, sinoe the view "improvement" is of foreground shrubs and trees beyond the Robberts residence. The slight downward view is almost identical to the present conditions. Ovc. half of the "i proved view" is then taken away by the excerzively high libr ar3 ceiling no story poles), xyhich increases the loss of water views from the dining area. The Robberts have not compromised their view corridor at A, since it is unobstructed to the south. 2. "The existing rnc~f. height of 13' 6" will be rwduced to 11' at the inost critical view area." FACT: 'The implication is that the entire front (garage) living of the house Tiburon Town Council Re: 166 R.ock Hill Drive Appeal Page 2 will have an 11' height. In fact, at least half of the garage wing is raised back to 13' 6" over the library. Since the Laceys have a slight downward view over this area, the effect of this re-raised roof on the downhill side is actually to block more water view from the home, rather than less. 3. "We will be planting sp: cimen-sized, landscaping." FACT: The Robberts and their landscap.- designer plan to cuff down almost all of the mature trees on their site. It will take 20 years to replace this lost tree growth with "specimen-sized landscaping. 4. `4We have eliminated a bedroom window from the rear elevation." FACT: The window was relocated to the west elevation, which is still a privacy issue for the Laceys. A similar bedroom window on the north side still looks directly into all of the Lacey bedrooms and their back yard, a maior privacy problem. 5. "We are setting back the retaining wall." FACT: This is true, After two failed DRB reviews, the Robberts and their landscape designer finally revised their plans to provide the Palfini's, the downhill neighbor, with a design that mitigated their problem on the third try, No such mitigation has occurred for the Laceys. The staff report makes the follotiving statements which do not convey the correct situation: I . The Design Guidelines Goal 3, Principle 7a, states that "view protection is more important for primary living areas". Fact: This guideline does not M view protection is not important in other areas, too. The master bedroom view is highly important in all homes (witness the huge views from the Robberrs master bedroom.) The portion of the Robberts residence which blocks the Lacey views does not even have a view itself. It is merely a two story high ceremonial cnu^y(at, O e4orA44. ` Yet it is blocking one of the prime views of a, neighbor. This is unconscionable. 2. Goal 3, Principle 7 of the Guidelines state "the horizon line is the most sensitive part of the view". FACT" The Robberts proposal takes 25% of the horizon and Sausalito vietivs from the Lacey master suite and 50% of the horizon and Sausalito views from the family room/bedroorr.. 3. "The proposed house would intrude into a small portion of the left side of the view from the master bedroom of appellant's home." FACT: The Laceys --will lose a quarter of their master suite view of Sausalito and the water if the Robberts residence is built as planned. 4. Goal 3, Principle 7d of the Guidelines states that "blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Crate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito,.Aneel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other less well known landmarks. FACT: Sausalito is one of the important oL?iects mentioned in the Design Guidelines for which special circumstances exist. The proposed location of the Tiburon Town Counci 1 Re: 166 Rock Hill Drive Appeal Page 3 Robberts residence would take all the downtown portion of Sausalito away from the Lacey view. Lacey is not even asking for all of it back, but is requesting that about half of this treasured view be maintained for them. The proposal to move the Robberts residence to the e,-61. makes this solution such an easy one, that eve do not understand Avhy the Laceys and the Design Review Board have not agreed to it. The Laceys have not asked for much. In four hearings; they have received virtually nothing. But this is a reasonable request, to which it is easy to acquiesce. Since they have not done so, we ask the Town Council tU do it for them or send the project back to the Design Review Board to do A. Furthennore, please have no doubts - 1 his is a massive, boxy design, the maximum allowed on the site. It has a huge interior volume and will appear even larger than its square footage indicates. It .lms massive, unrelieved walls and -gill be here longer than any of us. It must be sited extremely carefully in order not to create an unfortunate problem for the future. ' ne es S. Malott