Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2009-10-21 (3)TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting October 21 2009 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling; Jennifer and Samuel Dibble, Owners; Jim Malott, Architect/Applicant; Jeff and Satoko Boris, Chick and Anne Lettrich, Jim and Moira O'Neal, and Rod and Nancy McLeod, Appellants; File #709047; Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 262-31 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: 22 Mercury Avenue Owners: Jennifer and Samuel Dibble Applicant: Jim Malott (Architect) Appellants: Jeff and Satoko Boris, Chick and Anne Lettrich, Jim and Moira O'Neal, and Rod and Nancy McLeod Assessor's Parcel Number: 034-262-31 File Number: 709047 Lot Size: 7,884 Square Feet Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Flood Zone: X (outside special flood hazard zone) BACKGROUND On August 20, 2009, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a new single-family dwelling at 22 Mercury Avenue. The neighboring residents at 3 Apollo Road (Jeff and Satoko Boris), 26 Mercury Avenue (Chick and Anne Lettrich), 5 Apollo Road (Jim and Moira O'Neal) and 21 Mercury Avenue (Rod and Nancy McLeod), hereinafter collectively referred to as "appellants," have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants are requesting approval for construction of a new, 20.9 foot high two-story single- family dwelling on the property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. Currently a one-story house occupies the property and would be demolished as part of this application. TOWN OF TYBURON PAGE 1 OF 9 The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, one bedroom and 11/2 bathrooms. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with two additional bedrooms and one bathroom. A two-car garage would be situated on the main level. Eight skylights would be installed on the roof of the house. A six foot (6') tall, wooden fence would be constructed along the side and rear property lines. The structure would be finished with light brown colored shingles with grey and white trim. The roof would utilize dark grey colored shingles. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,722 square feet, which is 66 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,365 square feet (30.0%) of the site, which is the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. No variance or floor area exceptions are proposed as part of this application. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD November 20, 2008 Meeting The applicants submitted a previous application (File #708189) for construction of a new 26.5 foot tall, two-story single-family dwelling on October 21, 2008. The main level of the proposed house included a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, laundry room and one half- bathroom. The upper level included a master bedroom suite along with three additional bedrooms and two bathrooms. A two-car garage was proposed on the main level. Nine skylights were to be installed on the roof of the house. The floor area of the proposed house was 2,777 square feet, and the structure was proposed to cover 2,118 square feet (26.9%) of the site. The application was first reviewed at the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, several neighbors raised concerns about the visual mass and bulk of the proposed house and possible privacy and sunlight impacts that would be caused by the new two-story house. The Board shared some of these concerns and concluded that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling was inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood. The Board recommended that the extent of the second story portion of the house be reduced in size and the height of the house be lowered somewhat, and the Board encouraged the applicant to spread the house out more on the site. The application was continued to the December 18, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. December 18, 2008 Meeting The applicants submitted revised drawings for the project that did not change the building footprint or the floor plans for the house. The height of the proposed house was reduced between 4 and 5.6 feet (to a maximum height of 20.9 feet) by reducing the ceiling heights from 10 feet to 9 feet, lowering the roof pitch and building the house on a slab. A rear roof deck off the master bedroom and the raised first floor deck at the rear of the house were eliminated. The supplemental project description submitted by the applicant indicated that the location and heights of windows were modified, but the size and location of the windows shown on the exterior elevation drawings did not appear to have changed. TOWN OF TIBURON RAGE 2 OF 9 The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the December 18, 2008 meeting. At that meeting, the applicants stated that the changes to the project design were intended to respond to the concerns of the Board and neighbors regarding the height and visual mass of the house and possible privacy concerns. Several neighborhood residents spoke in support of the revised house design and the compatibility of the two-story design with the Belveron East neighborhood. Other neighbors generally located in closer proximity to the site expressed concerns about potential privacy and sunlight impacts and felt that the visual prominence of the two-story house design was inappropriate for this site. The Design Review Board determined that while lowering the roof of the house helped lessen the mass of the building, the revised house design was still too top-heavy and would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Board suggested moving some of the bedrooms downstairs and initially voted to deny the application when it appeared that the applicants were unwilling to explore other designs for the house. After the applicants indicated that they would be willing to consider other design options, the Board rescinded its motion to deny the project and continued the application to the February 5, 2009 meeting. The applicants subsequently requested several additional continuances until the time allowed to process the application under the State Permit Streamlining Act was due to expire. At the request of Staff, the applicants withdrew the application on April 1, 2009. June 18, 2009 Meeting On May 6, 2009, the applicants submitted a new application (File #709047, the current application) with plans that were identical to those reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2008 meeting. No changes were made to the project design in response to the direction given by the Board at that meeting, although the applicants submitted written materials attempting to justify the previously reviewed design of the house. The Design Review Board reviewed the application at the June 18, 2009 meeting. Nearby neighbors again raised concerns about the mass and bulk of the house and potential privacy issues, while other, more distant neighbors supported the house design. The Board reiterated their previously raised concerns about the mass and bulk of the second story and that the house would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Board asked the applicants if they would be willing to modify their plans. When the applicants declined to make changes to the project, the Board voted (3-2) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for adoption at the next Board meeting. July 2, 2009 Meeting At the July 2, 2009 meeting, a new architect (Jim Malott) for the project indicated that the applicants now intended to submit a new design for the proposed house. Two of the three Boardmembers who had voted to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of denial were absent from the meeting. The remaining members of the Board did not adopt the resolution of denial and instead voted unanimously to continue the application to the August 20, 2009 meeting. TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 3 OF 9 August 20, 2009 Meeting The applicants submitted new plans on July 21, 2009 that were substantially different from the design previously reviewed by the Design Review Board. Two bedrooms and one bathroom were eliminated from the upper floor, reducing the floor area of the second story from approximately 1,400 square feet to 975 square feet. The upper level was moved toward the street to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors to the side and rear of the site. The footprint and roofline of the house were also varied to minimize the visual mass and bulk of the house when viewed from the street and from adjacent homes. At the August 20, 2009 meeting, several adjacent neighbors reiterated their concerns about possible privacy issues and the incompatibility of the two-story house design with the character of the neighborhood. Several other Belveron East residents spoke in favor of the house design. The Design Review Board determined that the revised house design appropriately addressed the Board's previous concerns. The Board found that the changes to the roofline and increased setbacks for the second story area were effective and that the overall mass and scale of the house design was appropriate and compatible with the character of the Belveron East neighborhood. The Board believed that limiting second story additions in this neighborhood to the size of master bedroom suites, such as found in other two-story homes in the neighborhood, was unnecessary and would lead to less functional house designs. The Board voted 3-1, with Boardmember Wilson opposed, to, conditionally approve the revised house design, but eliminated a rooftop deck leading from the second story master bedroom as a condition of approval. On August 31, 2009, the owners of the neighboring homes at 3 & 5 Apollo Road and 21 & 26 Mercury Avenue filed a timely joint appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1). BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are six (6) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The proposed house would result in loss of privacy to the homes and yards of surrounding properties. Staff Response: The proposed house would have the potential to affect the privacy of the adjacent properties at 3 & 5 Apollo Road and 26 Mercury Avenue. The following describes the relationship of the second story of the proposed house to these adjacent properties: • 3 Apollo Road: The second story would be 31 feet, 9 inches from the neighboring dwelling at its closest point. A series of high-sill windows would face in this direction from the master bedroom and bathroom. The bathroom window would be finished with obscured glass. The rooftop deck facing the adjacent home was not approved by the Design Review Board, and the door onto the deck was required to be replaced by a window matching the other high-sill bedroom windows. TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 • 5 Apollo Road: The second story would be 61 feet, 9 inches from the adjacent residence at its closest point. The bedroom and hallway windows on the rear of the second story would be large and extend nearly to the roofline. • 26 Mercury Avenue: The second story would be 35 feet, 6 inches from the neighboring home at its closest point. A high-sill bathroom window and two larger bedroom windows (intended to serve as emergency egress points to satisfy building code requirements) would face this adjacent property. The Belveron East neighborhood was developed with single-story homes in close proximity to each other. The original single-story development pattern protected the privacy of the rear yard areas, but the small size of building setbacks frequently lessened the privacy between neighboring homes. These privacy conditions have been somewhat compromised by second story additions in the neighborhood over the decades, but have been addressed by raising window sill heights to limit sight lines down onto adjacent properties and increasing the distance between second story elements and adjacent homes and yards. It should be noted that bedrooms and bathrooms, such as those located in the proposed second story, are usually more heavily used during early morning and evening hours when rear yards are less likely to be enjoyed, and less used during daylight hours when children are more likely to play in neighboring yards. The approved plans indicate screening trees and vegetation would be planted along the property lines to provide additional privacy screening between the second story of the proposed house and the adjacent homes: The Tiburon Fire Protection District has raised concerns about the proximity of potentially combustible vegetation to the proposed house, which may require the applicants to limit the size and number of trees between the house and the property lines. At the August 20, 2009 meeting, the Design Review Board was concerned about the possible privacy impacts caused by the master bedroom deck facing the home at 3 Apollo Road and required that this deck be eliminated. The Board evaluated the potential privacy impacts from the surrounding homes and determined that these concerns were not substantial enough to require changes to the design of the proposed house. Ground #2: The proposed house and vegetation would block sunlight to neighboring properties. Staff Response: The approved second story would be situated from 23'6" to 61'9" from the surrounding homes at 3 & 5 Apollo Road and 26 Mercury Avenue. These setbacks would substantially lessen the potential for this portion of the proposed house to block sunlight that would otherwise reach these residences. At worst, it is likely that the upper story would interfere with a small portion of sunlight at the end of the day at certain times of the year. The project architect presented a rough sunlight study at the August 20, 2009 Design Review Board meeting which indicated that the second story would not interfere with the sunlight for any nearby homes. The appeal notes that landscaping proposed around the perimeter of the site would form "a vegetated wall blocking sunlight from all neighbors." Some of the larger tree specimens proposed to be planted have the potential to block some sunlight to certain portions of the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 9 surrounding homes and yards at particular times of the day and year, but are unlikely to create excessive shade for any adjacent property. As previously noted, the Tiburon Fire Protection District has raised concerns about the amount of combustible vegetation proposed to be planted close to the proposed house. It is likely that the landscaping plan will need to be substantially scaled back to comply with Fire District regulations. This would further lessen the potential of this vegetation to block sunlight to adjacent properties. Ground #3: The two-story design of the proposed house would be inconsistent with the character of the Belveron East neighborhood. Staff Response: Belveron East is a neighborhood in transition. The neighborhood is developed with predominantly single-story dwellings, but, in recent years, a number of homes have added second story living space to these one-story buildings. In most instances, the second story elements have been much smaller than the existing ground floor portions of the houses, in many cases amounting to the equivalent of an upstairs master bedroom suite. These relatively modest second story additions have met with the approval of the surrounding Belveron East residents and now blend in with the fabric of this established neighborhood. Section 16-4.2.7 (c) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications) states that the Design Review Board should consider neighborhood character in the review of Design Review applications: "The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one- story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." The Design Review Board has previously determined that second story additions can be permitted in the Belveron East neighborhood. The relatively modest upstairs master bedroom suites approved for various other homes in the neighborhood have been generally centered above the ground floor in order to comply with the requirement to permit such improvements "with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." The original house design for this application contained four bedrooms, three bathrooms and approximately 1,400 square feet of living area on the proposed second story. The Design Review Board determined that this design was too top-heavy and therefore incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The revised plan eliminated one bedroom and one bathroom from the second story, decreased the upper floor living area to 975 square feet and moved the second story toward the front of the site to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors to the side and rear of the site. The Board determined that these changes were substantial enough to minimize the intrusion of the second story on the neighborhood and resulted in a project design that was therefore compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 9 The subject lot is situated at the end of the "island" between Mercury Avenue and Apollo Road. The appeal states that due to this location "squeezed"' between several other lots, the relationship of the size of the house to the size of the lot would be inconsistent with the character of the Belveron East neighborhood. Numerous different zoning requirements, including floor area ratio, lot coverage, building height and setbacks from property lines, are intended to insure that the size and location of a house bears a reasonable relationship to the size and configuration of the lot upon which it is located. The proposed house would comply with all zoning requirements for this property and the Design Review Board determined that the overall house design would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Ground #4: The submitted plans include discrepancies between the site plan, floor plans and landscape plan. Staff Response: The interior dimensions of the rooms shown on the landscape plan differ from those indicated on the approved floor plans, but the footprint of the house shown on the landscape plan matches that on the approved site plan. The approved site plan and floor plans govern the exact size and location of rooms of a house. The floor plan layout shown on a landscaping plan is illustrative and is not used to determine the approved size or location of the structures on the site. Ground #5: The Design Review Board set a precedent for overriding recommendations of Staff and Boardmembers not present at the July 2, 2009 meeting. Staff Response: The Design Review Board usually only denies an application as a last resort, preferring that applicants work toward a project design that addresses issues raised by the Board and neighboring property owners. As previously noted, at the June 18, 2009 meeting a 3-2 majority of the Board voted to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the subject application after the applicants declined to make changes to the project design. When the applicants reversed their position at the July 2, 2009 meeting by hiring a new architect and indicating a willingness to submit new plans for the proposed house, the Board voted to continue the application instead of adopting the resolution of denial in the hope that the revised project design would be more acceptable. This hope was realized at the August 20, 2009 meeting when a majority of the Board, including two members who had previously voted to deny the application, voted to approve the revised project design. At the July 2, 2009 meeting Staff recommended that the Board either deny the application or have the applicant withdraw the application and resubmit a new application with the revised plans. This recommendation was based on the fact that the applicants had not been charged additional filing fees to submit the second application for this house and would be extending a lengthy review process even further by submitting completely new plans. The Design Review Board acted within its proper discretion to continue the application without requiring submittal of a new application or additional fees. Ground #6: The approval of the proposed house would lessen the diversity of housing stock by promoting larger and more expensive homes and two-story dwellings instead of one-story homes. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 9 Staff Response: As noted above, Belveron East is a neighborhood in transition, with a number of second story additions constructed in recent years. The Town of Tiburon has historically recognized the need and desire to upgrade the older housing stock in the community, as many older homes, such as those found in Belveron East, do not meet the needs of contemporary households in Tiburon. The Town has not made a practice of limiting the amount or expense of additions or new houses as a means of promoting the diversity of housing stock in the community. Limitations on two-story homes have been made when such construction would result in view or privacy impacts or excessive mass and bulk, or when inconsistent with the overall character of the surrounding neighborhood. In contrast to the Bel Aire neighborhood, where few two-story homes exist and such additions have been opposed by many residents, the recent growth in second story additions to homes in Belveron East has been strongly supported by the neighborhood, with the exception of the subject application. PUBLIC COMMENTS During the review of the current and previous applications for 22 Mercury Avenue, the Design Review Board received numerous letters from the appellants raising objections to the project design, along with a volume of letters from other Belveron East residents further away from the site stating support for the project. Copies of letters from the appellants to the Design Review Board have been attached as Exhibits 12-26, while copies of the individual letters of support to the Board are available for review in the application file at the Planning Division office. All letters to the Town Council that have been received regarding the subject appeal are attached. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board applied the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of this project. The Board determined that the revised two-story house design was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the changes made as a result of the revised design were substantial enough to minimize unreasonable intrusion of the second story on nearby homes. The Board evaluated the potential privacy impacts from the surrounding homes and determined that these concerns were not substantial enough to require changes to the design of the proposed house. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure; 2) Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 3) Direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 18, 2008 TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 8 OF 9 4. Design Review Board Staff report dated December 20, 2008 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated June 18, 2009 6. Design Review Board Staff report dated August 20, 2009 7. Minutes of the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 8. Minutes of the December 18, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 9. Minutes of the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 10. Minutes of the July 2, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 11. Minutes of the August 20, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 12. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated November 13, 2008 13. Letters from Albert and Shirley Anne Lettrich, dated November 17 & December 9, 2008 14. Letter from Jim and Moira O'Neal, dated December 10, 2008 15. Letter from Rod McLeod, dated December 10, 2008 16. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated December 1 1, 2008 17. Letter from Rod and Nancy McLeod, dated June 1, 2009 18. Letter from Albert and Shirley Anne Lettrich, dated June 6, 2009 19. Letter from Nancy McLeod, dated June 8, 2009 20. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated June 10, 2009 21. Letter from Jim and Moira O'Neal, dated June 11, 2009 22. Letter from Rod McLeod, dated July 5, 2009 23. Letter from Anne and Al Lettrich, dated August 7, 2009 24. Letter from Rod and Nancy McLeod, dated August 11, 2009 25. Letter from Jeff and Satoko Boris, dated August 11, 2009 26. Letter front jim and Moira O'Neal, dated August 13, 2009 27. Letter from Mark Talamantes and Karen Carrera, dated October 11 2009 28. Letter from Angela and Clark Jorgensen, dated October 4, 2009 29. Letter from Danny and Eithne Gallagher, dated October 5, 2009 30. Letter from Suzanna and Nick Bell, dated October 5, 2009 31. Letter from Niran and Daniel Amir, dated October 6, 2009 32. Letter from Benjamin Elliott, dated October 7, 2009 33. Letter from Katie and Rick Vasicek, dated October 71 2009 34. Letter from Jeff and Jennifer Barnes, dated October 8, 2009 35. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Administration\Town CounciEstaff reports\2009\0ctober 21 Drafts\22 Mercury Avenue.appeal.report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 9 TOWN OF TIBURON APPELLANT Name:,e 4 Address: Telephone: ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: Date of Action: 3 - 2-0 ~ 200 ~ Name of Applicant: k ~ «11'1 Nature of Application: ts(LIA) Silla~e'. I+ r~~r'YI i GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) -14 E ~ V E 3 12009 TOWN CLERK OF TIBURON c Last Day to File: - Date Received: F"Sl- 04~ Fee Paid: Date of Hearing: January 2004 ~NHIBIT N0. C NOTICE OF APPEAL HCJT~~ I L~ cp U 1-14 live- y, I (Work) ~ 3~~ ✓.l ~0 (Home) Grounds for Appeal We are appealing the approval by the Design Review Board of the plans submitted for the home located at 22 Mercury Avenue. In the process of preparing this appeal, minutes of the August 20, 2009, Design Review Board meeting were not available. Two primary reasons for the appeal are: 1. Site specific concerns for the immediate properties which are: A. Privacy - Direct sight lines from proposed second story into homes and back yards. Families deserve the right of privacy in their bedrooms, bathrooms, offices and common rooms. Proposed structure will have direct sight lines into several rooms of various neighboring properties at distances of 23'6" to 61'9". The backyard space in this neighborhood is an intrinsically valuable and - critical extension of the home. Property owners deserve the right to privacy in this reasonable and private extension of their home. B. Sky and Sunlight - Proposed structure would remove currently unobstructed views of sky and Ring Mountain. Sunlight would be lost from the structure and from proposed mature vegetation that is meant for privacy screening. Proposed privacy vegetation would not mature for 5-20 years thus, leaving privacy an issue for that amount of time. C. Proposed Vegetation - The significant number of plants (87 that have mature height of 7 feet or greater) will create a vegetated wall blocking sunlight from all neighbors. When a structure requires trees with heights from 7 - 40 feet and have mature lot coverage more than the total size of the lot, Marin Municipal Water District will, more than likely, reduce the vegetation allowed. This flatly brings us back to the concern of privacy. In speaking with professionals in real estate and landscape design, we have been informed that whether the shade comes from a structure or from mature vegetation, the loss of light from the west will impact our ability to grow plants in back yards and maintain valuable sunlight within the homes themselves. D. Site Layout - The location of the property is squeezed between two other properties on the end of the "island" between Apollo and Mercury. When looking at the Belveron Site Plan, there are two lot segments running the full length of the "island" until this three lot location. (See Attachment 1) This includes the other end of the island where only two lots exist. This lot directly adjoins three other lots with a fourth property roughly six feet away. Given this location, the size of the lot versus the size of the proposed home do not match the character of the neighborhood. (Town of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 16-4.2.7) EXHIBIT NO. z. vI- The proposed home appears to be more similar to neighborhoods (Reedland Woods Way for example) where lots are 10,000 - 14,000 square feet for homes with 4 bedrooms and 3 Y2 baths. The Belveron lots in the immediate area range from 7,000 to 8,200 square feet. If two-story homes become the norm in this area, the residents would be left with many two-story homes in close proximity with 12-15 foot hedges between each home. This would not only allow very limited growth of other vegetation (gardens), but it would totally change the character of the neighborhood where residents can enjoy the views of Ring Mountain, sunlight and the sky. Many of the two story homes that are in this neighborhood are surrounded by hillsides behind their properties and are on the perimeter of the neighborhood. The two story homes have been approved in these locations, but there are exactly zero two story homes on the island between Mercury and Apollo. E. Plan Details - The plans that were submitted and approved have significant discrepancies from one plan to another. Square footage of rooms in upper story varies by as much as 34.8 square feet and the total difference appears to be 57.5 square feet different from plan to plan. The oral argument for privacy using landscape plan was different from landscape plan that was submitted and approved. F. Neighborhood Character - In accordance with Section 16-4.2.7. in the Tiburon Zoning Code, it states that "the height size and or bulk of a proposed project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity..." The proposed house would not bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing homes in the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood and would result in excessive visual mass and bulk when viewed from the surrounding neighbors. In the resolution denying the application submitted at the July 2nd meeting, one of the Town's findings was that the visual mass of the 2nd story which would be seen from the adjacent homes at 3 and 5 Apollo was significant. Since the new plans have moved, the structure toward the south west, the same visual mass can be seen from 3 Apollo, 21 and 26 Mercury. 2. Design Guidelines for the Town of Tiburon A. The guidelines are not meant to allow any one person's desire to design or develop a structure that would overshadow the privacy and sunlight of another. In this case, multiple neighboring homeowners would be losing view, sunlight and privacy. The proposed structure and landscaping would greatly diminish the light and air flow to appellant's homes and yards. k_~XHTBIT N0. 3 at-- q- B. The DRB members are setting a precedent to voer ride staff recommendation and undermine the voting of beard members not present. At the June 18, 2009, DRB meeting, a resolution of denial of the application was voted on and was prepared by staff to be signed by the board members at the July 2' 2009, DRB meeting. Two of the board members who voted against the project were not present at this meeting which allowed the resolution to be left unsigned. We feel the Design Review Board is prescribing new precedents for large second story homes in this neighborhood. It seems that the Town Council and the Design Review Board would have a desire to have diversity in the housing stock in Tiburon. In discussions about diversity in housing stock, it is usually used in the context of architectural styles, rather than the size and general structure of the homes. The Belveron neighborhood is filled with homes that range from 950 square feet to about 2400 square feet. Most of these homes value in the $800,000 to $1,600,000 range (taken from www.zillow.com). By decreasing the number of homes in the lower price ranges, the Town will become a less diverse community. Much of the property value in Tiburon is retained by the excellent public school system. Young families make extreme efforts to live within this school district to take advantage of this system. If all the homes in the lower price range are removed and replaced with homes over $2M, many young families will be priced out of the market. During the Design Review Boards comment time before a vote, one of the Board members said that if they don't allow people to go up with their new construction, then all resulting plans would be "pizza boxes". Many beautiful single story remodels have been done in this area while taking the concerns and rights of the other residents into consideration. Creating two-story homes in this particular area is not being thoughtful or considerate of neighboring properties and their right to have privacy, sunlight and sky. The comments of some board members seem to show a disrespect of the residents in Belveron who live in one story homes and a disregard for their rights of privacy and light. We know that not all of the DRB members visited the properties, or stood in the yards and went into the homes to see personally the impact the proposal would have on neighboring properties. A second "diversity" that should be considered is the number of single story homes versus two story homes. The Belveron neighborhood is wonderfully diverse with respect to age of its residents. We have many young families with small children, as well as, many people who have lived in the neighborhood for 30-50 years who enjoy their homes. Single story homes allow all populations to enjoy their home, while mobility difficulties for anyone as they grow older can make two story homes less attractive. If all EXHIBIT NO. I q or 9 newly remodeled homes were changed to large second-stories, it will not allow us to "grow old" with our homes, leaving the diversity of the age of residents greatly compacted to those old enough to afford homes of this size, yet young enough to get up and down the stairs. In the process of the review of these plans, the Design Review Board has dismissed twelve dissenting neighbors' letters, the eight immediate neighbors concerns and disregarded the decision of their own Design Review Board members to deny the proposal at a previous meeting. Possible Actions/Solutions: 1. Propose a home design that protects privacy for the neighbors and for the residents at 22 Mercury. Revise the landscape plan to one that would have a greater possibility of meeting the requirements of Marin Municipal Water District and not take away sunlight and sky from neighbors. 2. We respectfully request the Council members each do an onsite review from the homes of the immediate neighbors. It is the only way to see the overwhelming impact of the proposed structure. A mere drive by is not sufficient. The dissenting vote on the DRB said it best, "When a proposal requires this much vegetation, there is something fundamentally wrong with the plan for this location." (This is not a direct quote without meeting minutes.) 3. We formally request a sun/shade evaluation done by a professional outside agency. The impact of the blockage of the sun from the structure of the proposed home and from the proposed vegetation is significant. Thank you to each Council Member for your time and commitment to our Town. Sincerely, Jeff Boris Satoko Boris Chick Lettrich Anne Lettrich Jim O'Neal Moira O'Neal Rod McLeod Nancy McLeod EXHIBIT NO. ( ~ yr ~ To members of Tiburon Town Council. We live at 21 Mercury Ave, directly across from the Dibbles project at 22 Mercury Ave recently approved by the Design & Review Board. This project has been denied three times by the D&R. Now a well-known Tiburon Architect has taken over the project. His promise as well as the Dibbles to confer with the neighbors MOST AFFECTED about their concerns NEVER happened. After the plans were completed, the Architect approached the neighbors. No attention was paid to the Boris, the O'Neil or the Lettrich families concerns. The Dibbles have stated that the previous owners, Julius and Patricia Akinyemi, had plans for a two story addition and the neighbors had signed off on the project. That was not true. Mr.Watrous, City Planner, verified that this was not the case. Mrs. Dibble came over to our house when we arrived home, and shoved a paper thru our car window demanding my husband read what had been approved. She became so confrontational that my husband had to drive away and leave myself standing there with her. Two of the neighbors witnessed this fiasco. If the Council Members could please drive around the Island that is Mercury and Apollo, they would realize why no two-story home exists. The close proximity of the lots, side-by-side and back-to-back, some in pie shapes, (See arial photos) are not suitable for a large two-story dwelling. ie.: ( privacy-day-lighting-etc.).The Dibbles obtuse desire for a home that will impact so many people in a negative light has caused much animosity. We respectively appeal and request The Town Council to overturn the decision of the Design & Review Board. Perhaps the Council could review the minutes of these hearings. Thank you Rod & Nancy McLeod EXHIBIT NO. t p_ & oF~ Q O O ~ Q~ Q u a ~W Q~A > CL CL < v~ tY >1 QL Z o C N < ~C Q S fl t~ N ~w t Q) ~t o O t r~ t a t N oI, 4 m t e 0 +.o S ~ Yy ` F/1~bq Qr_bIG. o _ sgrloop avy r r••?. ° ® ab .a g ®ry 3 ~ w .~ez dal 0 e w ~ • o m ~V%I 2 ;t ,m e B-1 111 '~a.L7M ~z cn•oa .r~ Pp r ~ A 0446 Amart . Q b ~ At Ica. 79, N ~ lNl ?--'era q- Y 1' ~ o ~ O .a 0 Y O w -.4 06011 ~1 eNy ~ d N ~ tpy ~ O 7 a O° ® W ~a~►s _ ® ® ' ; O r ® q tit ~ ~ w o $o N. o o p ~ 4 - 2~ Z r waves 5`' RAano83W -Ave f(S oa 0 Zb ex arF © ~ \A O rs°. N ter, °ic . ~ ~ w o m O o- H W ~n 11 \ i ~ a r r~r~,~~f d n CC3 O 0 c~ a~ a,o a~ a~ 0 0 r t= 2 0 0 U N N O O M 4-4 0 O U CC3 0 0 z as w ~o r t t e *At 4 410 : 0 0 / C, P n ti a"- c; 'Qi.9, E JUL 2 t 7009 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.. O Conditional Use Permit O Precise Development Plan O Secondary Dwelling Unit O Zoning Amendment/Prezoning O General Plan Amendment O Change of Address TOWN OF TIBURON TYPE OF APPLICATION O Design Review (DRB) O Design Review (Staff level) O Variance O Floor Area Exception O Sign Permit O Tree Permit O Tentative Subdivision Map O Final Subdivision Map O Parcel Map O Lot Line Adjustment O Certificate of Compliance O Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 22 /n tnc'v1r.y 4-ve PARCEL NUMBER: OWNER OF PROPERTY: 01,65Lr _PROPERTY SIZE: 7 991 sf ZONING: 2 - / MAILING ADDRESS: ZZ /"e-XCVrrl; vc~ CITY/STATE/ZIP 77auftJN cA PHONE NUMBER: FAX APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) JA-6163 S. AV A-L-o T MAILING ADDRESS: 8 773v2.~~ BLVD CITY/STATE/ZIP 77 r3L115,rt, rA- PHONE NUMBER: FAX 9 4~9~ ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: M~ ~T ~9--~f T~z75 .lI MAILING ADDRESS: 5 8 7 T/f3u ~3 Lv D 77 v7QMr C'~} 9Y 9? c c~ Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): L7k o 6X(5pAtc Si Dew cE- Ru/c p &rev AsTilnr ce 4M :5K bn- 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, clai r liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's f s tha ht result7from the third party challenge. *Signature- Date: 21 *If other than owner, must have letter from owner DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR FOR NEW RESIDENCE OR OTHER MAIN BUILDING Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): Use of Site (example: single family residential, retail, office, service, etc.): Existing: Nr~~ %5 O« Proposed: 5 -m t 70 BE COMPLETED B'Y 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 16-1.5(y)* Front Z ft. S ' ft, ft, ft. Rear -34 ft. 221 ft. ft. ft. Right Side 6 ft, 8~ 'ft. ft. ft. Left Side Maximum Height (Section 16-5.6.7)* 7 41 ~ft I 2 2 ft ft. . . ft. Lot Coverage (Section 16-5.6.8)* 2 15-6 sq.ft. 234„-sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage as 27- 30 Percent of Lot Area o /o ' Gross Floor Area (S ti 16 * f 3~b * z tS-S7 Z 7zz . ec on -1.5(f)) sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Net Floor Area (if office building) Section 16-ding) Sq.ft. Sq•ft• Sq•ft• Sq.ft. Number of Parking 2 Car' Spaces Provided spaces + 2.Dn paces spaces spaces *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 16 (Zoning). 2 EXHIBIT NO. DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM: NEW RESIDENCE OR MAIN BUILDING TOWN OF TIBURON JUNE 2006 Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 THE DIBBLE FAMILY 22 MERCURY AVENUE ' TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 MAY - 6 2009 PLANNING DIVISION May 6, 2009 Dear Mr. Watrous - Today we are reactivating the application for our project at 22 Mercury Avenue. Attached please find an updated Application Form for New Residence or Other Main Building. After devoting substantial time, thought and expense to exploring alternatives to our modest two story plan, we have decided to resubmit for Design Review Board approval the plans that were considered at the December 18, 2008 meeting. Also attached is a letter to the Design Review Board that discusses the alternatives that we considered, the drawbacks to those alternatives and the rationale for our ultimate decision to resubmit our earlier plans. We hope that you will appreciate the long and hard thought that we devoted to our project. We also ask that, in advance of preparing your report to the Board, you approach our project with an open mind and carefully consider the alternative proposals that we explored (and their serious drawbacks). We found that process edifying and hope that you will come to a similar conclusion. You and your staff should have all the other materials needed to reactivate our application. I have attached two reduced size sets of plans as you requested. Since the full size plans are already in our file and are costly to reproduce, we hope that you will not require them at this time. As you know, our story poles are set and we look forward to being part of the next available board agenda. Please feel free to call me at (415) 954-4961 or send me an e-mail at sdibble (u?fbm.com if you have any questions for me. Thanks and best regards. 1 Sam and Jennifer Dibble Enclosures EXHIBIT NO. 2- P 1, 3 b P-7- TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 THE DIBBLE FAMILY Q C`r 22 MERCURY AVENUE MAY - May 6, 2009 Dear Members of the Design Review Board - Today we are reactivating the application for our project at 22 Mercury Avenue. Since the last hearing on December 18, 2008, we have, at your request, devoted substantial time and thought (not mention expense) to exploring alternatives to our modest two story plan. As you may recall, we previously reduced the vertical height of the home by more than 20% and sacrificed many elements of our original vision including: • Cutting the height of the house by 6 feet so that it is only 20.8 feet above grade at its highest point; • Reducing the ceiling heights from 10' to 9'; • Eliminating the roof deck outside the master bedroom; and • Building on the slab and eliminating the backyard deck on the first floor. There continues to be broad neighborhood support for our project, with 32 of our neighbors signing a petition of support for our project after reviewing our plans. A copy of that petition is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. Many neighbors spoke in favor of our project at the December hearing and still others wrote letters of support. For the reasons described in this letter, after many months of careful thought and consideration we have concluded that a modest two story project consistent with what we proposed at the December 18, 2008 hearing is the best alternative for us, our neighborhood and our community. We are hopeful that the Board will agree that none of the available alternatives are attractive, and will conclude that a tasteful and stylish two story plan (whose footprint is smaller than that of the existing structure) will enhance our neighborhood by upgrading Belveron's 60+ year old housing stock in a way that will preserve open space and allow young families with children to stay in the neighborhood. We once again remind you that our project requires no variances and fully complies with the R-1 zoning ordinance. The Single Story Alternative: The Negatives Far Outweigh any Positives One alternative that we considered is a single story analog to our proposed project. Attached as Exhibit B is a floor plan and set of basic elevations for a one-story design. The required increase in lot coverage is substantial - 45% compared to our project's 27% (a 67% increase). In an area where flat land and open space are the most important assets, covering up nearly half of a lot with a house is a major strike against this alternative. When one considers that (a) the maximum height of the one story alternative would be only 1.3 feet lower than our proposed project and (b) each of our neighbors' homes is closer to our property than the required setback, it is clear why we concluded that the negative aspects of a one story plan far outweigh any advantages this approach may have. EXHIBIT NO. 2- F. q orb Tiburon Design Review Board May 6, 2009 The Partial Second Story Alternative: The Worst of Both Worlds A second alternative that we considered moved a bedroom and a bathroom from the second story to the first. Attached as Exhibit C is a floor plan for the partial second story alternative that we prepared. Our hope was that this approach would address the Board's concerns about massing in a way that would be viable and not unduly interfere with the livability of the house. However, the result could not have been more disappointing. Not only was the resulting decrease in second story square footage negligible (less than 200 square feet), but the livability of the remaining space was unacceptably altered. Separating the kids' and parents' sleeping areas splits a family, destroys the concept of "togetherness" time, and (especially in a second story home) raises serious safety concerns, for example in the event of a fire or earthquake. When combined with the awkward design elements inherent in a partial second story approach, this alternative is one that we consider unattractive and unviable for the young families now living in Belveron. A Modest Two Story Home is the Right Answer for Today's Belveron Belveron may be a challenging neighborhood because of its substandard lots and outdated homes, but there must be a place for a well conceived, environmentally friendly and legally compliant plan such as the one we submit to you today. In Belveron West, a nearly identically aged and located subdivision that faces the same set of challenging characteristics, the Board recognized the evolution of this area of Tiburon and approved two much taller projects at 104 and 106 Jefferson. Like those homes, our proposal conforms to the zoning code and does not require variances or exceptions. In approving the project at 104 Jefferson (a 27 foot high structure), Boardmember Figour said that "the house would fit in with what is happening in Belveron and would make the neighborhood less monotonous in design." Chair Teiser stated that the two story home would enhance the neighborhood and cautioned that, "the Design Review Board should be careful about designing the interior of an applicant's house as long as the application conforms to the zoning code and does not require variances and exceptions." We completely agree - especially after devoting hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in investigating the alternatives. We would be happy to meet in person or to speak with some or all of you by phone to discuss our application. Please feel free to contact me either by phone at (415) 954-4961 or by e- mail at sdi.bble(ayfbm.com. Thankyou in advance for your consideration of our application. Sam and Jennifer Dibble Enclosures cc: Dan Watrous -AHIBIT NO. 2- P..9 OP7 THE DIBBLE FAMILY 22 MERCURY AVENUE TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 OCT October 6, 2009 Dear Members of the Town Council - We are the homeowners of 22 Mercury Avenue and are writing to you today regarding the August 20, 2009 approval by the Design Review Board of our plans to construct a new single family home on our property. Even though no variances were requested in connection with our approved plans, we understand that an appeal of the Design Review Board's approval has been filed by a small group of our neighbors. We would like to respond to the claims made by the appellants, which we feel do not take into account the complete redesign of our project that took place in July 2009. Those redesigned plans incorporated all of the changes requested by the Design Review Board during the prior three hearings for our project. In developing the plans for our project that the Design Review Board approved, we and our architect, Jim Malott, met several times with each of the appellants and attempted to address the concerns articulated to us in those meetings. Every change requested by the neighbors was seriously considered and incorporated into our plans to the extent practicable. This was the case at the beginning of the process more than a year ago (see Exhibit. A), and continued to be true even at the August 20th hearing at which we eliminated both the outside patio off the master bedroom and our chimney stovepipes in response to requests from the appellants. In short, we have done everything within our power to reach out to and accommodate our neighbors. The appellants' concerns about light, views and privacy were comprehensively examined by the Design Review Board in its consideration, and ultimate approval, of our plans. Mr. Malott prepared a detailed sun study showing that our design mitigated or eliminated the impact of the shading on our neighbors from the proposed structure. The same study noted that much of the shading of the Lettrich home comes from existing foliage on their own property - a factor completely outside of our control. The landscape plan for our project was designed in collaboration with the town planning department to protect privacy in a way that preserved natural sunlight for all involved. The elimination of the roof deck area off the master bedroom area further ameliorates the appellants' privacy concerns. Similarly, the side and rear setbacks of our plan are significantly greater than those required by the zoning ordinance and we have tried to maximize the space between the houses in an attempt to give everyone more privacy and open space. Our plans take into consideration the location and orientation of our neighbors' windows and existing views. As Mr. Malott explained to the Design Review Board, there is little or no impact on the view of the sky or the ridgeline from their homes and we have worked hard to EXHIBIT NO. Z P, & biF Tiburon Town Council October 6, 2009 achieve that result. For example, the second story is positioned toward the northwest corner of our property, across the McLeod's garage and where the Lettrich house has no windows. We have also given great deference to the character of the neighborhood in our design. There are more than 15 two story homes in Belveron East and another 10 or so in Belveron West. In prior hearings to consider these homes, the minutes show that presence of a second story has rarely, if even, been at issue. Second stories are not only prevalent in Belveron, but they are the least intrusive way to include additional square footage in homes that must be fit into odd shaped and substandard lots like ours. In addition, second stories allow more of the level yards to be preserved, which gives the kids more play area and keeps the outdoor spaces less congested. And, of course, two story buildings are more energy efficient and use fewer natural resources during construction. The appellants' idea that there are "islands" within Belveron plainly fails to resonate with the neighborhood. We have attached to this letter as Exhibit B, a petition signed by 32 of our fellow Belveron East residents in support of our project. Attached to this letter as Exhibit C is a set of the 9 separate letters of support for our project that the Design Review Board received prior to its August 20, 2009 approval of our project. The strong and broad support for our project within Belveron East shows that our plans conform to the character of the neighborhood and that Belveron does not wish to be grouped into islands or otherwise segmented in a way that fails to recognize the continuity of the neighborhood from one street to the next. Many similar two story homes have been approved in Belveron and fairness and consistency require that the Town Council uphold the Design Review Board's determination that our project fits within the character of the neighborhood. We invite all of the members of the Town Council to visit our property and, in particular, to see the story poles and neighboring homes from our back yard. Please feel free to call us at 789-1913 or stop by and we will be happy to show you around our home and property. We understand that the approval process is a long and involved one and remain committed to seeing it to its conclusion. That being said, we urge the Town Council to uphold the Design Review Board's determination so that all of us can move forward. Sincerely Sam and Jennifer Dibble Enclosures cc: Dan Watrous Jim Malott EXHIBIT NO. Z T , --7 O'F ? TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: PROJECT DATA Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting November 20, 2008 Agenda Item: E6 22 Mercury Avenue; File #708189 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of A New Single-Family Dwelling ADDRESS: 22 MERCURY AVENUE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 034-262-31 FILE NUMBER: 708189 PROPERTY OWNERS: JENNIFER AND SAMUEL DIBBLE APPLICANT: ROMAN RETTNER (DESIGNER) LOT SIZE: 79884 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLOOD ZONE: C DATE COMPLETE: NOVEMBER 7, 2008 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 is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, laundry room and one half-bathroom. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with three additional bedrooms and two bathrooms. A two-car garage would be situated on the main level. Nine skylights would be installed on the roof of the house. A six foot (6') tall wooden fence would be constructed along the side and rear property lines. ~5 EXHIBIT NO. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,777 square feet, which is 11 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,118 square feet (26.9%) of the site, which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. 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 light brown colored shingles with grey and white trim. The roof would utilize dark grey colored shingles. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1 zone. Design Issues The subject lot is generally level and roughly rectangular. The property is situated within the Belveron East neighborhood just north of the intersection of Mercury Avenue and Apollo Road. Due to the generally level terrain of the surrounding neighborhood, the second story of the proposed new house would not interfere with any substantial views for any nearby homes. The proposed dwelling,would be situated generally in line with the footprints of the adjacent homes at 3 Apollo Road to the south and 26 Mercury Avenue to the north. The upper floor windows have been minimized on the north side of the house, but the number of south-facing windows could result in some privacy impacts on the home at 3 Apollo Road. The Belveron East neighborhood is developed with predominantly single-story dwellings. In recent years, a number of homes in have added second story living space to these one-story buildings. In most instances, the second story elements have been much smaller than the existing ground floor portions of the houses, in many cases amounting to the equivalent of an upstairs master bedroom suite. These relatively modest second story additions have met with the approval of the surrounding Belveron East residents and now blend in with the fabric of this established neighborhood. The second story of the proposed house would contain four bedrooms and three bathrooms. This design would create a more "top heavy" appearance that would appear to be inconsistent with the visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. There is adequate space to move several of the bedrooms to the lower level of the house while still maintaining a large rear yard for the property. Section 16-4.2.7 (c) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications) states that the Design Review Board should consider neighborhood character in the review of Design Review applications: "The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one- EXHIBIT NO. r story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." If the Design Review Board agrees that the volume of the proposed second story does not bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing homes in the vicinity, the Board should direct the applicant to redesign the proposed project to reduce the size of the second story of this dwelling. Public Comment As of the date of this report, four letters have been received from the neighbors at 30 Mercury Avenue and 3, 4 & 6 Apollo Road objecting to the mass and bulk of the proposed house and its inconsistency with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicants have submitted a form signed by five neighboring property owners with whom they have reviewed the project design. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 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 Design Review Board agrees with Staff's conclusions, the application should be continued and direction given to the applicant on changes to be made to the project design. If the Board wishes to approve the project, Staff would recommend that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Shirley Brown, dated November 12, 2008 4. Letter from Susan and Jennifer Barker, dated November 13, 2008 5. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated November 13, 2008 6. Letter from Rich and Christi McElreath, dated November 14, 2008 7. Submitted plans EXHIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting December 18, 2008 Agenda Item:D2 22 Mercury Avenue; File #708189 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of A New Single-Family Dwelling (Continued from November 20, 2008) The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. The application was first reviewed at the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, several neighbors raised concerns about the visual mass and bulk of the proposed house and possible privacy and sunlight impacts that would be caused by the new two-story house. The Board shared some of these concerns and felt that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling was inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood. The Board recommended that the extent of the second story portion of the house be reduced in size and the height of the house be lowered somewhat, and the Board encouraged the applicant to spread the house out more on the site. The application was continued to the December 18, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the project. The footprint of the house and the floor plans for both levels of the house remain unchanged. The height of the proposed house has been reduced by between 4 and 5.5 feet by reducing the ceiling heights from 10 feet to 9 feet, lowering the roof pitch and building the house on a slab. The rear roof deck off the master bedroom and the raised first floor deck at the rear of the house have been eliminated. The supplemental project description submitted by the applicant indicates that the location and heights of windows have been modified, but the size and location of the windows show on the exterior elevation drawings appear to be unchanged. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1 zone. TOWN OF TiBURON q PAGE 1 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. Design Issues The reduced height of the proposed house would reduce the overall volume of the house and should lessen any intrusion into the views of the surrounding hillsides from several nearby homes. The elimination of the rear deck areas should alleviate most potential privacy concerns raised by the immediately adjacent neighbors. The second story would not appear to substantially block any sunlight for nearby homes. As noted in the previous Staff report for this project, the Belveron East neighborhood is developed with predominantly single-story dwellings, and the homes that have added second story living space have upper levels that are much smaller than the existing ground floor portions of the houses, often the equivalent of an upstairs master bedroom suite. This reflects a development pattern where two-story homes can blend in with the other one-story homes in the vicinity by maintaining a two-story building profile that does not overwhelm the other one-story homes nearby. The Board has previously indicated that two-story homes are clearly welcome in this neighborhood, as long as their design "bear[s] a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity," as called for in Section 16-4.2.7 (c) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The four bedrooms and three bathrooms of the second story of the proposed house would be inconsistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. Although the substantial height reduction would make the second story appear less "top heavy" than the previous house design, the ratio of second story floor area to ground floor area for this house would be much greater than other two-story homes in this neighborhood. Most of the photographs submitted by the applicant of other Belveron East homes reflect the more modest second story additions that have been successfully developed in this neighborhood. Many residences in the Belveron West neighborhood (along Jefferson Drive and Washington and Irving Courts) have larger second story elements, but few homes in the immediately surrounding Belveron East neighborhood have similar two-story home designs. The applicant's supplemental materials also refer to a request to expand the subject house made by the previous property owners. In 2001, the Design Review Board approved a request for a one-story addition to the rear of the existing house. This application did not involve either the demolition of the existing house or any second story additions to the house. A building permit was never issued in conjunction with this application and the Design Review approval for that project has expired. The existing house contains four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a family room, living room, kitchen and a two-car garage. The proposed house would contain four bedrooms, 31/2 bathrooms, a family room, living room, kitchen and a two-car garage, along with a laundry room, play room and pantry. Although the new rooms are larger and more livable than those in the existing dwelling, the project would essentially involve a net increase of 11/2 bathrooms, a play room, a laundry room and a pantry. There appear to be other development options for including the amount of floor area requested by the applicant. The proposed house would have a 40 foot rear yard setback and additional space TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. 4 between the front of the house and the front yard setback. There is adequate space to move several of the bedrooms to the lower level of the house while still maintaining a large rear yard for the property. However, the applicant has indicated a desire for a floor plan with all bedrooms on the same level (as found in the existing house), and a one-story house would likely exceed the 30.0% maximum lot coverage for this property. As noted above, the reduced height of the proposed house would reduce the overall volume of the house and the Design Review Board may find that the revised plans bring the design of the house into conformance with the predominant pattern of homes in the Belveron East neighborhood. However, if the Design Review Board determines that the volume of the proposed second story still does not bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing homes in the vicinity, the Board should direct the applicant to redesign the proposed project to reduce the size of the second story of this dwelling. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the subject site to view the story poles and observe the relationship between the proposed house and the neighboring homes. The Board is also encouraged to drive around the Belveron East neighborhood to better evaluate whether the volume of the second story of the proposed house is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, four letters have been received from neighboring property owners at objecting to the revised design of the proposed house and two letters from neighbor supporting the project. The applicants have submitted several petitions signed by other property owners in the neighborhood supporting the revised project design. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-4.2.7 (Guiding Principles) and make one of the following determinations: 1. If the Board feels that the proposed house design is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood, the Board should give clear direction to the applicant regarding changes that should be made to the house design and continue the application to a future meeting date. Prior to continuing the application, the Board must determine if the applicant is willing to consider a continuance for this purpose and the Town must receive an assurance that the applicant would be willing to grant an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act deadline for this application. 2. If the applicant is unwilling to make the changes necessary to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance requirements to make the house design compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, the Board should direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application, to be acted upon at the January 15, 2008 Board meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 'i RAGE 3 OF 7 5 ...i s., P.r..: i. ~~i.?. fe .2 f~. 3. If the Design Review Board finds that the revised plans result in a house design that would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, the Board should determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303 and approve the application with the attached conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Supplemental materials submitted by the applicant, dated December 8, 2008 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 20, 2008 4. Minutes of the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 5. Letter from Jeff and Jennifer Barnes, dated December 8, 2008 6. Letter from Albert and Shirley Anne Lettrich, dated December 9, 2008 7. Letter from Rich and Christi Mc Elreath, dated December 10, 2008 8. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. James O'Neal, dated December 10, 2008 9. Letter from Mel and Anna Belle Pearce, dated December 10, 2008 10. Letter from Rod McLeod, dated December 10, 2008 11. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated December 11, 2008 12. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 14 EXHIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Revie"7 Board Meeting June 18, 2009 Agenda Item:F4 22 Mercury Avenue; File #709047 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of A New Single-Family Dwelling ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 22 MERCURY AVENUE 034-262-31 709047 JENNIFER AND SAMUEL DIBBLE ROMAN RETTNER (DESIGNER) 79884 SQUARE FEET R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C MAY 27, 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 is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, play room, laundry room and one half-bathroom. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with three additional bedrooms and two bathrooms. A two-car garage would be situated on the main level. Nine skylights would be installed on the roof of the house. A six foot (6') tall wooden fence would be constructed along the side and rear property lines. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 8 EXHIBIT NO.- 5- . The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,777 square feet, which is 11 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,118 square feet (26.9%) of the site, which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. 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 light brown colored shingles with grey and white trim. The roof would utilize dark grey colored shingles. BACKGROUND The applicants submitted a previous application (File #708189) for construction of a similar new residence on October 21, 2008. The previous application was first reviewed at the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, several neighbors raised concerns about the visual mass and bulk of the proposed house and possible privacy and sunlight impacts that would be caused by the new two-story house. The Board shared some of these concerns and felt that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling was inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood. The Board recommended that the extent of the second story portion of the house be reduced in size and the height of the house be lowered somewhat, and the Board encouraged the applicant to spread the house out more on the site. The application was continued to the December 18, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicants submitted revised plans for the project that did not change the building footprint and the floor plans for both levels of the house. The height of the proposed house was reduced by between 4 and 5.5 feet by reducing the ceiling heights from 10 feet to 9 feet, lowering the roof pitch and building the house on a slab. The rear roof deck off the master bedroom and the raised first floor deck at the rear of the house were eliminated. The supplemental project description submitted by the applicant indicates that the location and heights of windows have been modified, but the size and location of the windows show on the exterior elevation drawings appeared to have been unchanged. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the December 18, 2008 meeting. At that meeting, the applicants stated that the changes to the project design were intended to respond to the concerns of the Board and neighbors about the height and visual mass of the house and possible privacy concerns. Several neighbors spoke in support of the revised house design and the compatibility of the two-story design with the Belveron East neighborhood. Other, more immediate neighbors expressed concerns about potential privacy and sunlight impacts and felt that the visual prominence of the two-story house design was inappropriate for this site. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that lowering the roof of the house helped lessen the mass of the building, but the revised house design was still too top-heavy and would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Board suggested moving some of the bedrooms downstairs and initially voted to deny the application when it appeared that the applicants were unwilling to explore other designs for the house. When the applicants indicated that they would be willing to consider other design options, the Board continued the application to the February 5, 2009 meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON RAGE 2 OF 8 EXHIBIT NO, 5- 3 r' The applicants subsequently requested several additional continuances until the time allowed to process the application under the State Permit Streamlining Act was due to expire. The applicants withdrew the application on April 1, 2009. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1 zone. Design Issues The plans submitted with the subject application are identical to those reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2008 meeting. No changes have been made to the project design in response to the direction given by the Board at that meeting. The applicants have submitted additional written materials attempting to justify the previously reviewed design of the house. The height of the proposed house was reduced from the original building design, which lessened the overall volume of the house and should minimize any intrusion into the views of the surrounding hillsides from several nearby homes. The house does not include any upper level deck areas on the rear of the building, which should alleviate most potential privacy concerns raised by the immediately adjacent neighbors. Several neighbors have raised concerns of about possible privacy impacts from windows looking down into their adjacent yard areas. The second story would not appear to substantially block any sunlight for nearby homes. As noted in the previous Staff reports for this project, the Belveron East neighborhood is developed with predominantly single-story dwellings, and the homes that have added second story living space have upper levels that are much smaller than the existing ground floor portions of the houses, often the equivalent of an upstairs master bedroom suite. This reflects a development pattern where two-story homes can blend in with the other one-story homes in the vicinity by maintaining a two-story building profile that does not overwhelm the other one-story homes nearby. The Board has previously indicated that two-story homes are clearly welcome in this neighborhood, as long as their design "bear[s] a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity," as called for in Section 16-4.2.7 (c) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Many residences in the Belveron West neighborhood (along Jefferson Drive and Washington and Irving Courts) have larger second story elements, but few homes in the immediately surrounding Belveron East neighborhood have similar two-story home designs. With the exception of several larger two-story homes on Venus Court, at the far eastern end of Belveron East, the three homes in this neighborhood which appear to have the most visually prominent second story elements in the neighborhood are located at 16 Apollo Road and at 3 & 29 Juno Road. The home at 16 Apollo Road was constructed in 1955, long before the incorporation of the Town of Tiburon, and no floor plans for the house can be found in Town records. A second story addition was approved for the house at 3 Juno Road in 1993, which TOWN OF TIBURON ~ PAGE 3 OF $ EXHIBIT NO. included 549 square feet of living space for a master bedroom suite and a study. A 550 square foot, 2 bedroom, one bathroom second story addition was approved in 2001 for the home at 29 Juno Road. The second story addition of the proposed house would contain approximately 1,408 square feet of floor area for four bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, making the upper floor more than 2.5 times the size of the largest second story living spaces in the vicinity. Staff believes that the two-story design of this house as proposed would be inconsistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. Although the second story appears less "top heavy" than the original house design, the ratio of second story floor area to ground floor area for this house would be much greater than other two-story homes in this neighborhood. The existing house contains four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a family room, living room, kitchen and a two-car garage. The proposed house would contain four bedrooms, 31/2 bathrooms, a family room, living room, kitchen and a two-car garage, along with a laundry room, play room and pantry. Although the new rooms are larger and more livable than those in the existing dwelling, the project would essentially involve a net increase of 11/2 bathrooms, a play room, a laundry room and a pantry. At the December 18, 2008 meeting, the Design Review Board recommended that the applicants pursue other design options for the proposed house. As noted in the staff report for the previous application, there is adequate space to move several of the bedrooms to the lower level of the house while still maintaining a large rear yard for the property. However, the applicant has indicated a desire for a floor plan with all bedrooms on the same level (as found in the existing house), and a one-story house would likely exceed the 30.0% maximum lot coverage for this property. After agreeing to a continuance to pursue other design options, the applicant ultimately withdrew the previous application and resubmitted the same plans that the Board would not approve at the December 18, 2008 meeting. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the subject site to view the story poles and observe the relationship between the proposed house and the neighboring homes. The Board is also encouraged to again drive around the Belveron East neighborhood to better evaluate whether the volume of the second story of the proposed house is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, five letters have been received from neighboring property owners at 175 21 & 26 Mercury Avenue and 3 & 11 Apollo Road objecting to the proposed house. The applicants have submitted several petitions signed by other property owners in the neighborhood supporting the previous application for this property. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-4.2.7 (Guiding Principles) and make one of the following determinations: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF $ 6- EXHIBIT NO. I. If the Board feels that the proposed house design is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood, the Board should give clear direction to the applicants regarding changes that should be made to the house design and continue the application to a future meeting date. Prior to continuing the application, the Board must determine if the applicants are willing to consider a continuance for this purpose and the Town must receive an assurance that the applicants would be willing to grant an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act deadline for this application. As previously noted, the applicants agreed to consider such changes at the December 18, 2008 Board meeting, but have made no changes and have now resubmitted the previously reviewed plans for this house. 2. If the Board feels that the proposed house design is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood and the applicants are unwilling to make the changes necessary to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance requirements to make the house design compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, the Board should direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application, to be acted upon at the July 2, 2009 Board meeting. 3. If the Design Review Board finds that the revised plans result in a house design that would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, the Board should determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303 and approve the application with the attached conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Minutes of the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 4. Minutes of the December 18, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 5. Letter from Rod and Nancy McLeod, dated June 1, 2009 6. Letter from Marti Andrews, dated June 3, 2009 7. Letter from Albert and Shirley Anne Lettrich, dated June 6, 2009 8. Letter from Nancy McLeod, dated June 8, 2009 9. Letter from Mel and Anna Bell Pearce, dated June 9, 2009 10. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated June 10, 2009 11. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF $ EXHIBIT NO. J~-- To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROPOSAL TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting August 20, 2009 Agenda Item:Dl 22 Mercury Avenue; File #709047 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of A New Single-Family Dwelling (Continued from July 2, 2009) The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. BACKGROUND The applicants submitted a previous application (File #708189) for construction of a similar new residence on October 21, 2008. The previous application was first reviewed at the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, several neighbors raised concerns about the visual mass and bulk of the proposed house and possible privacy and sunlight impacts that would be caused by the new two-story house. The Board shared some of these concerns and felt that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling was inconsistent with the character of the' surrounding Belveron East neighborhood. The Board recommended that the extent of the second story portion of the house be reduced in size and the height of the house be lowered somewhat, and the Board encouraged the applicant to spread the house out more on the site. The application was continued to the December 18, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicants submitted revised plans for the project that did not change the building footprint and the floor plans for both levels of the house. The height of the proposed house was reduced by between 4 and 5.5 feet by reducing the ceiling heights from 10 feet to 9 feet, lowering the roof pitch and building the house on a slab. The rear roof deck off the master bedroom and the raised first floor deck at the rear of the house were eliminated. The supplemental project description submitted by the applicant indicates that the location and heights of windows have been modified, but the size and location of the windows show on the exterior elevation drawings appeared to have been unchanged. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the December 18, 2008 meeting. At that meeting, the applicants stated that the changes to the project design were intended to respond to TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. the concerns of the Board and neighbors about the height and visual mass of the house and possible privacy concerns. Several neighbors spoke in support of the revised house design and the compatibility of the two-story design with the Belveron East neighborhood. Other, more immediate neighbors expressed concerns about potential privacy and sunlight impacts and felt that the visual prominence of the two-story house design was inappropriate for this site. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that lowering the roof of the house helped lessen the mass of the building, but the revised house design was still too top-heavy and would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Board suggested moving some of the bedrooms downstairs and initially voted to deny the application when it appeared that the applicants were unwilling to explore other designs for the house. When the applicants indicated that they would be willing to consider other design options, the Board continued the application to the February 5, 2009 meeting. The applicants subsequently requested several additional continuances until the time allowed to process the application under the State Permit Streamlining Act was due to expire. The applicants withdrew the application on April 1, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the applicants submitted a new application with plans that were identical to those reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2008 meeting. No changes were been made to the project design in response to the direction given by the Board at that meeting, but the applicants submitted written materials attempting to justify the previously reviewed design of the house. The Design Review Board reviewed the application at the June 18, 2009 meeting. The Board reiterated their previous raised concerns and asked the applicants if they would be willing to modify their plans. When the applicants declined to make changes to the project, the Board voted (3-2) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for adoption at the next Board meeting. At the July 2, 2009 meeting, a new architect for the project indicated that the applicants now intended to submit a new design for the proposed house. The Board did not adopt the resolution of denial and instead continued the application to the August 20, 2009 meeting. REVISED PROJECT DESIGN The revised main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, one bedroom and 1'/2 bathrooms. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with two additional bedrooms and one bathroom. A rooftop deck would extend to the south of the upstairs master bedroom. A two-car garage would be situated on the main level. Eight skylights would be installed on the roof of the house. A six foot (6') tall wooden fence would be constructed along the side and rear property lines. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,722 square feet, which is 11 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size and 55 square feet smaller than the previous house design. The proposed house would cover 2,365 square feet (30.0%) of the site, which is the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. CC 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 light brown colored shingles with grey and white trim. The roof would utilize dark grey colored shingles. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1 zone. Design Issues The revised house design is substantially different from the design previously reviewed by the Design Review Board. Two bedrooms and one bathroom have been eliminated from the upper floor, reducing the floor area of that level from approximately 1,400 square feet to 975 square feet. The upper level has been moved toward the front of the site to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors to the side and rear of the site. The footprint and roofline of the house have also been varied to minimize the visual mass and bulk of the house when viewed from the street. As noted in the previous Staff reports for this project, the Belveron East neighborhood is developed with predominantly single-story dwellings, and the homes that have added second story living space have upper levels that are much smaller than the existing ground floor portions of the houses, often the equivalent of an upstairs master bedroom suite. The revised house design would essentially contain a master bedroom suite centered atop the main level of the house, with a smaller additional wing added to the front and north side of the upper level. This second story design would appear less "top heavy" than the original house design and would be much more similar to other two-story homes in this neighborhood than the previously submitted house designs. The proposed roof deck facing the home to the south at 3 Apollo Road could result in unwanted privacy impacts on this adjacent residence. The original house design reviewed by the Board on November 20, 2008 included a similar deck to the rear of the upper level that was removed by the applicants due to concerns about potential privacy impacts on the home to the east at 5 Apollo Road. Staff recommends that the currently proposed rooftop deck also be eliminated and the exterior door replaced with a window similar to others proposed on that side of the upper level. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, twelve letters have been received from neighboring property owners concerning the proposed house. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 7 EXHIBIT N0. 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 15303. 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. Application and supplemental materials 3. Minutes of the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 4. Minutes of the December 18, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 5. Minutes of the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 6. Minutes of the July 2, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 7. Letter from Anne and Al Lettrich, dated August 7, 2009 8. Letter from Rod and Nancy McLeod, dated August 11, 2009 9. Letter from Gary Morgan, dated August 11, 2009 10. letter from Mel and Anna Belle Pearce, dated August 11, 2009 11. Letter from Jeff and Satoko Boris, dated August 11, 2009 12. Letter from, Mark Talamantes, dated August 12, 2009 13. Letter from Christine and Ryan McGuinnness, dated August 12, 2009 14. Letter from Suzanne Falces, dated August 12, 2009 15. Letter from Jim and Moira O'Neal, dated August 13, 2009 16. Letter from Marti and Jay Andrews, dated August 13, 2009 17. Letter from Ann Hunt, dated August 13, 2009 18. Letter from Sharon Sand and Vince Pannepacker, dated August 13, 2009 19. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 22 MERCURY AVENUE FILE #709047 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on May 6, 2009, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of July 21, 2009 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Division for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 4. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 7. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to M.M.W.D. landscape regulations, as required by Town Council Ordinance. 9. 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 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 10. Prior to underfloor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be required. Required documents shall include graphic documentation locating the building on a site plan and including specific dimensions from property lines and other reference points as appropriate, and elevations relative to sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified. 11. 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. 12. The project shall comply with the following requirements of 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 Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin (CFC 304.1.2). 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 of application. e. The applicant shall comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested. TOWN of TIBURON (0- PAGE fi OF 7 EXHIBIT NQ. 14. The applicants shall obtain a sewer permit from the Richardson Bay Sanitary District and pay all applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main. After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection for conformance to standards. 15. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans: a. Ground cover and low height plants shall be installed toward the front of the property to protect adequate sight lines. b. Any proposal that would encroach into the public right-of-way is discouraged and not permitted. This would include fences, retaining walls and permanent improvements. Under special circumstances the Town may consider these encroachments. Should the applicant consider their case to be a unique circumstance, the proposal should be clearly documented and resubmitted. C. Typical encroachments, such as driveway approaches, walkways, drainage facilities and short-height landscaping, need to be processed through a standard Public Works encroachment permit application with plans or schematics for review. d. Public right-of-way shall be protected from damage during construction or repairs shall be made to the satisfaction of the Town. 16. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met. An encroachment permit shall be required for all improvements and landscaping within Town right-of-way. No new walls, fences or similar structures shall be built within Town right-of-way. 17. The master bedroom deck shall be eliminated. The door leading to the deck shall be replaced with a window similar to others along the south side of the upper level of the house. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 7 OF 7 6. 22 MERCURY AVENUE DIBBLE, NEW DWELLING The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, laundry room and one half-bathroom. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with three additional bedrooms and two bathrooms. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,777 square feet, which is 11 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,118 square feet (26.9%) of the site, which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Samuel Dibble, owner, said that the Belveron neighborhood is relatively flat and there are a lot of kids. He wanted to take advantage of the open space on their property and pull the house as far away from neighbors as possible. He said that the footprint of the house would be smaller than it is now, with larger setbacks. He said that they have been meeting with neighbors since before any drawings were done. He said that they wanted a larger house to accommodate two adults and two children. He said that they also wanted to have the master bedroom on the same floor as their kids' bedrooms. The public hearing was opened. Jeff Boris said that the proposed house would look directly into the back of their house, even at one story. He said that the story poles make it evident that the house would impact their privacy, and block the view of the sky out of the third bedroom and sunroom. He stated that he would not be able to view the sunset from half of the house and this would create mold and dampness problems on that side of the house. He voiced concern that the house would create a wind tunnel, noting that they have lost trees and a fence on that side of the house in previous windstorms. He said that the size and scope of the home was overbearing. Ann Lettrich said the Dibbles reviewed the plans with her, but when the story poles went up, the size and height of the structure was more apparent. She said she would lose a lot of sunlight on her property and privacy on her deck would be violated. Rodney McCleod said that he is not against the second story, but believed the house was enormous and would totally blanks out his view of the hills. He suggested a redesign of the house so that it would not impact the neighbors as much. Nabil Halawa said the two-story house would block views on two sides from his house. He felt that the house was too massive with four bedrooms on top. He said that he did not want to take away the owners' dream, but would like to see the house redesigned with some of the bedrooms downstairs to reduce the mass of the second story and to lessen impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Dibble addressed some of the neighbors' concerns, noting that Mr. Boris' property is directly to the south and so there would be no chance of blocking his light or sunsets. He said TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 EXHIBIT N0. 11/20/08 there are houses that have added a second story in their neighborhood, and in fact, plans were approved in 2001 to add a second story for this property. He said that they have included some stylistic elements to reduce the appearance of the second story. He said that some of the light and view issues would be there even with a one-story house. He said they were trying to create more space around the house to try to address neighbors' concerns. Chair Doyle asked about the height of the proposed ceilings. Mr. Dibble said his family is tall and that is the practical reason for having 10 foot ceilings. Chair Doyle noted that the scale of the second story and height of the house feel out of character with the neighborhood, noting that most houses in the neighborhood have 8 foot ceilings. Mr. Dibble said the houses that have two stories in the neighborhood are 23 feet high and they are requesting a house that would be a few feet above that. Boardmember Wilson asked about the roof deck. Mr. Dibble said the neighbors requested the master bedroom in the back and they added a deck. He said it could be scaled back if that is necessary for approval. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said this is a challenging neighborhood, and the way the back yards come together impacts quite a few neighbors. He said that although there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood some abut open space. He felt that the house would have too much mass upstairs and looks top-heavy. He was unsure whether the top deck would cause privacy problems. He wondered if any of the bedrooms could be brought downstairs, perhaps into the location of the formal dining room. He believed that the project needed some compromise on many different levels and he was inclined to vote against it. Boardmember Tollini agreed with Boardmember Wilson's comments and stated that the project does not fit into the neighborhood. He said that the 10 foot tall ceilings were higher than necessary. He said that one of the recurrent themes among neighbors is that they are often conceptually okay with a project until they see the story poles. He said that he did not object to a second story, but felt that the house was top-heavy and the overall height needed to be reduced. He felt it is difficult to fit 4 bedrooms and 3 full baths on a second story without creating a large mass, and suggested some way to move some of that floor area downstairs. Boardmember Chong said the neighborhood consist mostly of one-story houses. He cited the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which states that in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second stories should be discouraged. He noted that there were other tow-story homes near the house at 16 Venus Court, but this lot was situated in the flat part of the neighborhood. He said that he would be hard pressed to approve a second story and it would need to be a fraction of the size of the proposed second story for him to approve it. Chair Doyle said he liked the design and the reasons the applicant is proposing it, but he did not like this house at this location. He said that the house feels out of place in the neighborhood and would work better if the lower level was expanded and some of the mass were taken off the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 EXHIBIT NO. 9 11/20/08 second story. He said the houses in the neighborhood that have second stories are more articulated and not as top heavy and he suggested something similar be considered. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Chong) to continue the application to the December 18, 2008 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 7. 55 MT. TIBURON ROAD FAIDI, NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING/ VARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION - WITHDRAWN F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE 11/6/08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING No changes were requested by the Board. ACTION: It was M/S (Doyle/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2008 meeting as written. Vote: 4-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. N0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 EXHIBIT 10 11/20/08 block the light, such as plantings for the back side of the house, but he felt that the landscaping was something that could be worked out with the neighbors. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) that the project 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 requiring that the rear window trellises be lengthened from 3 feet to 4 feet and no air conditioning unit be allowed in the side yards. Vote: 4-0. 2. 22 MERCURY AVENUE DIBBLE, NEW DWELLING The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The application was first reviewed at the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, several neighbors raised concerns about the visual mass and bulk of the proposed house and possible privacy and sunlight impacts that would be caused by the new two-story house. The Board shared some of these concerns and felt that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling was inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood. The Board recommended that the extent of the second-story portion of the house be reduced in size and the height of the house be lowered somewhat, and the Board encouraged the applicant to spread the house out more on the site. The application was continued to the December 18, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the project. The footprint of the house and the floor plans for both levels of the house remain unchanged. The height of the proposed house has been reduced by between 4 and 5.5 feet by reducing the ceiling heights from 10 feet to 9 feet, lowering the roof pitch and building the house on a slab. The rear roof deck off the master bedroom and the raised first floor deck at the rear of the house have been eliminated. The supplemental project description submitted by the applicant indicates that the location and heights of windows have been modified, but the size and location of the windows show on the exterior elevation drawings appear to be unchanged. Sam Dibble, owner, reported on changes they have made to accommodate neighbors' concerns. In response to the Board's concerns that the house design was top heavy, he said that they have reduced the height of the house by a little over 6 feet by reducing the first floor and second floor ceilings from 10 feet to 9 feet and reducing the pitch of the roof. He said that they met with neighbors and, based on their specific comments, they have removed roof deck and the patio to reduce some of the impact on the neighbors' back yard privacy. Mr. Dibble believed that the house would fit in with the Belveron East neighborhood even though it is two stories. He referred to the zoning ordinance which states that although discouraged, two-story homes may be permitted in predominantly single-story neighborhoods if designed to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. He showed photos of other homes of different styles in the neighborhood and felt that the proposed home actually fits in well with other house styles in the neighborhood. He acknowledged that at the last meeting the Board suggested increasing mass on the ground floor and reducing mass on the top, but he felt that doing so would use more materials, be more costly and environmentally less friendly than their plan, and could require them to ask for variances. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 EXHIBIT N0. 3 12/18/08 He said they have put a lot of effort into the revised plan and he felt that there is support for their plan from the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. Mike Carlson said he deals with these issues on a daily basis as a real estate attorney and he felt that the Dibbles have done their job and have taken his comments about the plans to heart. He stated that two-story homes in the neighborhood are inevitable, and he believed that this design would be compatible with the neighborhood. He said that a lot of neighbors support this project because it would improve the overall look and feel of the neighborhood and he was fully in favor of the project. Danny Gallagher said that he has looked at the plans and thinks it is a beautiful design and would fit nicely in the neighborhood. He thought that it would be an improvement to the neighborhood and he fully supported it. Jeff Boris said this project is on a corner lot and surrounded by 12 houses, with 7 of them directly affected by the proposed house. He noted that the adjacent homes are not parallel with each other and that the proposed house would be 7 feet away from his own property and would block sunlight to his home. He believed other neighbors do not realize the affects this house would have on its neighbors. Anne Lettrich said the project would substantially affect her property. She stated that they did not sign off on a two-story proposal by the previous owner, who had only proposed a one-story extension to the back of the existing house. She felt the two-story home would truly impact her privacy and sunlight and that the applicant has not made very many concessions. She said that the house was still huge and would not fit with the neighborhood. She also said that most of the letters from the neighbors who support the project do not live anywhere near it or see the impact to the immediate neighbors' back yards, while those opposed to it live next door to the Dibbles. Tyler Shelton supported the project, stating that a neighborhood with two-story homes is appropriate for modern life in Marin County. He believed that the neighborhood was very family-oriented, and although he did not want anyone to be adversely impacted where their privacy or view impact would suffer, he wanted the neighborhood to have a vision for the future. Rodney McLeod stated that the homes in the photos Mr. Dibble presented to the Board back up into the hillside, and therefore do not impact neighbors and cannot be compared to the proposed project. He said that there are many houses that would be affected by the Dibbles' house. Mr. McLeod said it is important to look at the lot configurations to see this impact. He said that he supported the previous request for an addition to the house, but does not support a second story. He felt Mr. Dibble has done nothing to reduce the mass other than take a foot off each floor and that the design does not fit into Belveron East neighborhood. Jim O'Neal said that he was not opposed to progress and would love the Dibbles to have a really nice home. However, he was concerned about the long-term effects of this project, stating that if TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 EXHIBIT NO. 4 12/18/08 all four homes around his house were to go to two stories it would definitely impact the light on his home. Jennifer Barnes said she completed a major remodel addition in 2004 which required a variance to approve a larger first floor. She referred to the home 34 Mercury which is directly behind her and which directly impacted her views, but stated that she still supported that project. She believed that when a project is tastefully designed it should be allowed to proceed despite the impact on neighbors. Nancy McLeod said she thought the house is beautiful and would be wonderful on another lot, but not at this location. She said that she loves the Dibble family and felt very bad that this project has pitted neighbors against neighbors. She said that she has lived there for 43 years and has watched the neighborhood evolve. She questioned whether the whole neighborhood has a say in what happens at this one address or would the neighbors who are impacted have more of a say. She noted that the people who approve of it are not the people who live next door to the proj ect. Ben Elliott stated a project like this would be a benefit to the neighborhood and he voiced strong support of it. Susan Smith said that all three houses around her have been remodeled, but none of those remodels have two stories. She said that she was opposed to a two-story house, and she hoped the Board would take into account the concerns of the immediate neighbors. Mr. Dibble commented on the layout of the lot, stating that they are aware that the back of the lot is tapered and so they made sure that the setbacks were larger in the rear. He said that they moved the house forward to increase the space in the backyard where the houses are closer together. He believed that they have taken the concerns of the immediate neighbors into account. He said that he and his wife are young and understand that older people may have a different view of the neighborhood, but that they have also been told by some neighbors that they should move and found that was very painful. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said the project is a challenge and he appreciated the applicant's efforts and why other neighbors have come out in favor of it. However, he believed that the immediate neighbors' concerns should be given more weight than those of neighbors living further away from the site. He felt that the applicant did not address the Board's specific comments to reduce the mass and top-heavy appearance of the second story. He believed that large second story homes were inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. He noted that other homes in Belveron East have master bedroom suites upstairs and not as many bedrooms as proposed for this house. He stated that the Board has been consistent over the years in reviewing applications, and the photographs submitted reiterate the Board's view that the area upstairs on a house should not equal the area downstairs. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 EXHIBIT NO. Yr 5 12/18/08 Boardmember Tollini said that he could not conclude that the second story bears a reasonable relationship to other second stories in the neighborhood. He said that he did not have a problem with second story designs in general in this neighborhood but he still did not believe that 4 bedrooms and 3 baths should be placed on a second story in this neighborhood. He characterized the design as still too top-heavy and precedent-setting for the neighborhood. Boardmember Chong said that he thought long and hard about the application, and thought that the difference in the house design from a height standpoint was dramatic. He said that a lot of focus has been on the fact that the house would be two stories, as opposed to focusing on the overall height of the structure, as a one-story house could easily be close to the roof height of the current project. He stated that each neighborhood has its own character and there have been a number of neighbors supporting this because it would be a relatively modest home by Tiburon standards. He understood the concerns of the immediate neighbors, but said that he would rather see a compact two-story home rather than a sprawling one-story home. He said that he was leaning toward supporting the project, and noted that the neighborhood is evolving. Chair Doyle said that it was good to hear from immediate neighbors and from the whole neighborhood because everyone is affected by a house over time. He understood that the applicants are trying to do something different with the house design and the neighborhood is evolving. He thought that the style of the house fits and lowering the roof has helped. However, he said that there are not any other homes in the neighborhood with so much floor area and all of the bedrooms on the second floor, making it almost the same size as the first floor. He understood the reasons for the design and was not necessarily opposed to a second story, but felt that it should be more of a partial second story. If some bedrooms were moved downstairs, he believed that the project would be more consistent with the other two-story houses in the neighborhood which have only master bedroom suites upstairs. Boardmember Chong felt that a design with a master suite on top would look awkward. Boardmember Tollini noted that the upstairs area was almost the equal of the downstairs area, with four bedrooms and three bathrooms upstairs, and he suggested moving some of the rooms downstairs. Chair Doyle said that the applicant may still be able to get the square footage he wants if some bedrooms are moved downstairs. He noted that every neighbor that would be affected by the two-story structure does not want it and he believed their reasoning was sound. He felt that there was not enough support for the current plan to move forward with all of the bedrooms on the second floor and asked the Dibbles to explore other possibilities. Mr. Dibble said they explored the possibility of moving bedrooms downstairs, and the architect did some preliminary sketches, but such changes would do major damage to the floor plan and the stairs. He said that they will look at it again if required to do so, but he said it would require a complete redesign. He also said that if they move a bedroom and bathroom downstairs, the house would move closer to the neighbors and this would add expense, so he preferred not to do it. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 EXHIBIT NO. 0 6 12/18/08 Boardmember Wilson asked if they have considered building a one-story house at the maximum lot coverage. Mr. Dibble said that developers told him not to add any new foundation to the existing house. He stated that they could add on and then move when they outgrow the house, but they do not want to move out of the neighborhood. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the consensus of the Board appeared to be that pointed this design is inconsistent with the neighborhood. He stated that the Board can either continue the application if the applicant was open to changing the design or the Board could direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the application to be brought back at the next meeting. He stated that the applicant did not appear to be willing to explore other designs for the house. ACTION: It was M/S (Wils(n/Tollini) to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the project. Vote: 3-1 (Chong voted no). Mr. Dibble said he did not realize they were voting to approve or deny the project at this point and said he would prefer a continuance rather than a denial. Planning Manager Watrous asked if the applicant would be willing to consider an option that eliminates at least two bedrooms from the top floor. Mr. Dibble said it would need to be an extended continuance because it will require a rework of the entire plan. He verbally agreed to an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act deadlines to allow a more extended continuance. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Tollini) to rescind the previous motion for the project at 22 Mercury Avenue. Vote: 4-0. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Wilson) to continue the application to the February 5, 2009 Board meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 5 ROLLING HILLS ROAD WESTERN LIABILITY INSURANCE, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-story single-family dwelling on property located at 5 Rolling Hills Road. The project would involve modifications and additions to expansion plans previously approved for this property. A dining room previously approved on the main level of the house would be converted into an office/media room and a new dining room would be added at the western end of the house. Decks off the previously approved second story master bedroom and family room would be enlarged. A hallway and wine cellar would be added adjacent to the existing lower level garage. Variances are requested for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, along with a floor area excerption. Albert Domain, Hank Bruce Architects, stated that the design is basically the same as previously proposed except for some minor changes. He said that the main change is the dining room addition, which is intended to attain a view in the dining room that is equal with the other TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #19 EXHIBIT NO. 7 12/18/08 There was no public comment on the item. Vice-Chair Chong said he visited the site, found the addition to very reasonable, and agree with the staff report and findings. Boardmember Wilson said he visited the site as well and concurred with Vice-Chair Chong. Boardmember Tollini said he also visited the site. He noted that the proposed addition does not allow enough depth to park a second car in front of the garage, but said that a bulge in the cul-de- sac could accommodate that. Boardmember Kricensky felt the project would be a significant improvement for the house. He asked about the cricket over the entryway that was shown on the roof plan but not the elevation drawings. Mr. Bruce said that the entire roof slopes and the cricket are to divert water. Boardmember Kricensky said his only concern was the lack of two off-street spaces but staff has indicated that the current parking situation is nonconforming. Chair Doyle agreed with staff's recommendation. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Wilson) that the request for 13 Maravista Court is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0. 4. 22 MERCURY AVENUE DIBBLE, NEW DWELLING The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new, two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,777 square feet, which is 11 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,118 square feet (26.9%) of the site, which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. The plans submitted with the subject application are identical to those reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2008 meeting. No changes have been made to the project design in response to the direction given by the Board at that meeting. The applicants have submitted additional written materials attempting to justify the previously reviewed design of the house Sam Dibble, owner, reviewed the project's history and objectives and reported on the modifications had made over time to ensure the privacy and views of the surrounding neighbors. He stressed that he and his wife have worked very hard to increase setbacks wherever possible as well as make other specific changes requested by their neighbors and the Board. He said the ceiling height has been significantly lowered since the original plans were submitted, decreasing the home's overall height to 21 feet, which is similar to a single-story home. EXHIBIT NO. Ct TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 6/18/09 Mr. Dibble acknowledged the Board's request that they consider alternatives to a two-story design. He said that the conceptual one-story house design that they prepared would have a 45% lot coverage, require setback variances on all sides, eliminate a large portion of the home's outdoor space, and create a home that they would not want to build and could not live with. Mr. Dibble believed the house as proposed would fit in with the Belveron East neighborhood even though it is two stories. He said that the decreased footprint, increased setbacks, energy efficiency, and accommodation of a 5+-member family are very much in line with what is set forth in the General Plan. He cautioned the Board to be cognizant of the difference between character and monotony when making decisions about what neighborhood character ought to be. Jennifer Dibble, owner, said she and her husband spent considerable time meeting with their neighbors at the beginning of the project with the specific intent of avoiding this position. She said they have acquiesced wherever possible and increased side setbacks over what their original idea for the house. She said that this is the only design that would allow the entire to family to sleep on one level, which she felt was something important for safety and family dynamics. She reiterated that they have made countless compromises, both before and after hearings by the Board, but she will not compromise the safety of her family. The public hearing was opened. Jeff Boris said the project is on a corner lot and surrounded by 12 houses, with 7 of them that would be directly affected by the proposed house. He stated that the adjacent homes are not parallel with each other and the proposed house would be 8 feet away from his property line and would block sunlight to his home. He voiced concerns for loss of enjoyment of his property as well as the potential for mold. He shared a photo taken from his front door, noting that the applicant's house would be all he would see whenever he left his home. He would like the applicant to have the home they desire but not at the expense of the enjoyment of his own home. Moira O'Neal said her home abuts the applicant's rear yard. She voiced concern that the apple tree currently screening the two homes from one another would be removed. She shared photos showing the visual impact that a recently-installed play structure has on her privacy. She said that neighbor's properties are situated 3 to 4 feet higher than her own, and said that the 4 large windows proposed would provide the applicant with a direct view of the entirety of her yard. She said she has added value to the neighborhood by remodeling her own home and does not wish to lose that value simply because she remodeled before everyone else. Jennifer Barnes said her own Belveron remodel project required a significant lot coverage variance due to one neighbor's opposition to a second story. She recalled that one Boardmember suggested that homeowners consider second story buildings as a measure against variances. She voiced support for the project and the value it would add to all homes in the neighborhood. Danny Gallagher said he reviewed the plans and considers them to be a tasteful improvement to the neighborhood. He said most single-story homes stand 18 feet high, not much below the height of the proposed house. He concurred with Ms. Dibble's desire to keep her children's rooms on the same level as her own and supported the project. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 6/18/09 EXHIBIT N0. Satoko Boris said those neighbors who support the project would not be directly affected by it, but she would be affected. She said she does not object to remodels in the area but she felt that the locations and proportions of these lots snake a two-story home unsuitable. Clark Jorgensen said the neighborhood's housing stock is quite old and homogenous and he believed that there was nothing about the applicants' proposal that would not significantly improve the entire neighborhood. Ben Elliot said that the applicants have already made numerous concessions to their original design and dropping the roofline by 6 feet seems like an acceptable solution. He agreed that having children on the same level of the home as parents adds an important level of security and he voiced support for the project. Ms. Dibble acknowledged the O'Neal's position and noted that as a result of conversations with them, they have relocated the children's bedrooms to the front of the house and eliminated the master bedroom balcony. She explained that the window overlooking the O'Neal's yard is situated over her own bathtub and at a height that would prevent either party from seeing the other. With respect to the Boris family, she said her current home allows her look directly at their TV and she intentionally avoided any windows in this area of the proposed home. Ms. Dibble reiterated that they worked very hard to address neighbors' concerns and have made many compromises. She believed that the neighborhood's character should not be determined by just 3 neighbors. Mr. Dibble said they have made all the changes requested of them and are happy to make any other specific changes requested, but this comes down to the character of the neighborhood. He felt that the house is modest for Tiburon, a normal home for the Belveron area, and one that would work for his family. Boardmember Wilson questioned if the proposal is the same as the first or second design brought before the Board. Mr. Dibble noted it was the same as the second design reviewed by the Board in December, 2008. Chair Doyle questioned and confirmed that the master bathroom window on the second floor would be set back approximately 4 feet from the bottom floor. He asked how far the front bedroom was set back from the garage roofline. Boardmember Kricensky used a scale to determine that the second story setback would be approximately 11 feet at the front of the home. Chair Doyle questioned the number of proposed skylights. Mr. Dibble said that 9 skylights are proposed and explained that the pitch of the roof is such that neighbors should not be affected by them. Vice-Chair Chong asked whether any thought was given to shortening the full-length windows on the south elevation of the second story. Mr. Dibble said the windows were positioned for light purposes. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 6/18/09 Vice-Chair Chong confirmed that the height of the northern elevation bathroom windows would be approximately 6 feet. Mr. Dibble noted that those windows have been placed to let in light and would be situated over sinks. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Chong explained that he has tried to compartmentalize the issues with this project into those associated with a two-story home in Belveron, the design of this particular two-story home, and the direct impact on the immediately surrounding three lots. He visited each site, spent time viewing the entire neighborhood, and he did not believe that the other two-story homes in Belveron ruin the charm of the neighborhood. He found this particular project to be modest, with a neighborhood feel that would not be as much of a problem on almost any other lot. He noted that the house had been reduced in height from its original design. He said that although there would be some impact on all three surrounding homes, the privacy impacts would only be a concern for the home at 3 Apollo Road. He stated that it is hard to value the impacts of a house on outdoor living space, but he would like to try to minimize the impacts where the subject home and the house at 3 Apollo Road back up to each other. He said that he was much more comfortable with the application than when it first came forward. Boardmember Tollini said his feelings have not changed since the project was last reviewed. He noted that the staff report states that the second story would be 2.5 times the size of any other second story in the area, and combined with the significant impact on the surrounding neighbors, this is unacceptable. He said that the house would have a substantial impact on the neighbors and he could not support that much floor area on the second story. He acknowledged the applicant's desire to keep all four bedrooms on the same level, but he felt that this does not work at this location. He suggested that the applicant consider moving at least one bedroom downstairs. Boardmember Wilson said he visited the site and he said that the Board was clear during its last review that the mass of the second story needed to be scaled back. He agreed with Vice-Chair Chong that the three surrounding lots would be the most impacted and that their concerns are more important than those of neighbors further away. He acknowledged the applicant's efforts and pleasing design, but said if the decision is all or nothing, he could not support the application. He reiterated that the Board was very clear since the beginning in its wish to see a reduced second story mass. He was inclined to deny the application as it had not been altered from the previous design. Boardmember Kricensky said he also visited the site. He found the project's overall design to be very well done in an architectural style that suits the surrounding area. He said that the program for the house was enviable, but he was unsure that this was the appropriate site for such a house. He said that the story poles were deceiving in that they are placed at the maximum height of the roof at all points. He said that the lots in this area are very tight and he was concerned that similar house built on the other lots would give the area more of an urban feeling. Chair Doyle said he has visited and travelled past the site numerous times and found himself in agreement with Vice-Chair Chong. He understood the applicant's desire to keep all bedrooms upstairs, acknowledged the concessions already made to lower the roof and move windows, and TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. C7t 6/18/09 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 N0. 8 6/18/09 MINUTES #11 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 2, 2009 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Doyle. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Doyle, Vice-Chair Chong, and Boardmember Kricensky Absent: Boardmembers Tollini and Wilson Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner Phillips, and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the item for 680 Hawthorne Drive was continued to the July 16, 2009 meeting, and the application for 83 Claire Way has been withdrawn. D. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Chair Doyle opened the floor for nominations for Chair of the Design Review Board. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Doyle) to elect Vice-Chair Chong as Chair of the Design Review Board. Vote: 3-0. Chair Chong opened the floor for nominations of Vice-Chair of the Design Review Board. ACTION: It was M/S (Doyle/Kricensky) to elect Boardmember Tollini as Vice-Chair of the Design Review Board. Vote: 3-0. E. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 22 MERCURY AVENUE DIBBLE, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL Planning Manager Watrous noted when the resolution of denial was prepared the vote was three to two in favor of this resolution, but that two of the three Boardmembers who voted in favor of the resolution are not present tonight. He stated that that the Board may wish to continue the item. Jim Malott spoke on behalf of the applicants. He said that they have received more counsel on their earlier application, and he is requesting that instead of adopting the resolution the Board TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 EXHIBIT NO. d 7/2/09 grant a continuance for the applicants to present a totally redesigned application in consultation with the neighbors. He said that they believed that they can meet the parameters of the design guidelines and achieve agreement in the neighborhood. Jeff Boris noted that the process had been going on with basically the same design for eight months. He did not want it to be continued with basically the same design and to put the neighborhood through the entire process again. He said the project needs to be a complete redesign, and something needs to be resolved before granting a continuance. Mr. Malott stated that they are proposing to drastically downsize the second story and totally redesign the floor plans. He said that they would in effect be starting over and will do their best to make it palatable to the entire neighborhood. Planning Manager Watrous listed the options available to the Board: 1. Adopt the resolution denying the application. 2. Continue the resolution of denial to the next meeting where the full board can vote on the resolution. 3. Continue the project to a later meeting for the new design. 4. Require the applicant to withdraw the current application and resubmit a new application. Planning Manager Watrous stated that Staff recommended that the fourth option be taken by the Board. , Boardmember Doyle said that he believed that the applicants would come back with something very different that will make the neighbors and the Board happy. He said that it would streamline the process and save time to continue the application rather than withdrawing and starting over. Boardmember Kricensky questioned why staff recommended a new application instead of a continuance. Planning Manager Watrous replied that starting with a new architect and new design usually constitutes a new application. He stated that the first application was submitted last October and since that time, the applicants have only paid fees once and have used a fair amount of staff time and time with neighbors in dealing with the matter. He stated that State law requires the Board to make a decision on an application during a certain timeframe. With a continuance running an extra six weeks, the applicants may start running into a shortened time period for approval. He added that the applicants would have to agree to withdraw the previous application, and then the Board would need to decide whether to continue or deny. Mr. and Mrs. Dibble verbally agreed to a permit streamlining extension. ACTION: It was M/S (Doyle/Kricensky) to continue the application for 22 Mercury Avenue to the August 20, 2009 meeting. Vote: 3-0. TMURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 l/ 2 7i209 EXHIBIT NO. MINUTES #14 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2009 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Vice-Chair Tollini, and Boardmembers Doyle and Wilson Absent: Boardmember Kricensky Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner Phillips, and Minutes Clerk Levison B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the application for 22 Juno Road was continued to the September 3, 2009 meeting. He stated that the Board's approval of the application for 166 Rockville has been appealed to the Town Council, with a hearing scheduled for September 2, 2009. Boardmember Tollini volunteered to attend the appeal hearing if Boardmember Kricensky is unavailable. D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 22 MERCURY AVENUE DIBBLE, NEW DWELLING The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The applicant submitted a previous application (File #708189) for construction of a similar new residence on October 21, 2008 which was continued numerous times until the applicant withdrew the request on April 1, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the applicants submitted a new application with plans that were identical to those reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2008 meeting. At the July 2, 2009 meeting, a new architect for the project indicated that the applicants now intended to submit a new design for the proposed house. The revised house design is substantially different from the design previously reviewed by the Design Review Board. Two bedrooms and one bathroom have been eliminated from the upper floor, reducing the floor area of that level from approximately 1,400 square feet to 975 square feet. The upper level has been moved toward the front of the site to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors to the side and rear of the site. The footprint and roofline of the house have also been varied to minimize the visual mass and bulk of the house when viewed from the street. TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 8/20/09 EXHIBIT NO. Jim Mallot, architect and representative for the applicant, reviewed changes made to the proposed application since it was last presented to the Board. He said that the applicant has reduced the footprint of the second floor, stepped the ground floor back, moved the second floor forward, reversed the location of the garage, and added small gables to reduce the home's overall mass. He said that they attempted to address each individual neighbor's concerns by eliminating, relocating, or resizing windows as well as adding vegetative screening to ensure that short-range views are almost solely of natural elements. He noted that the proposed screening would not cut off any sky or hillside views with the exception of one neighbor who would lose a small portion of their Ring Mountain view. He stated that the project does not require any variances and complies with all applicable codes, and he asked the Board to approve the application. Chair Chong opened the public hearing. Mohamad Sadrieh addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant's neighbors, the Boris family. He stated that the three most treasured assets of a Tiburon home are views, privacy, and sunlight. He said that homes in the Belveron neighborhood are primarily single-story because anything higher would affect those assets. He said that the Boris family would support any reasonable single-story proposal and urged the Board to deny the application until the applicants modify their design to keep light, view, and privacy in mind. Ann Lettrich said that she lives immediately next door to the applicant. She said that when she and her husband added a master suite to their home they placed no windows on the wall facing their neighbors out of respect for their privacy. She said that Mr. Mallott admitted that her yard would be visible from several of the proposed windows. She said her husband's tomatoes are planted along a neighboring fence and the proposed screening would not provide them with sufficient light. Danny Gallagher stated that the applicant seems to have listened carefully to the neighbors' and the Board's suggestions and addressed the major concern pertaining to the mass of the second story. He felt that the design of the home was very nice and stated his support for the application. Jennifer Barnes voiced support for the project. Melissa Elliott said that she understands the need for larger homes with updates and would like growing families to be able to remain in the neighborhood. She said that the project would be a good fit and she supported the application. Dillis Bart said that the applicant has gone to tremendous lengths to address neighbors' concerns. She said that she was strongly in favor of the project and asked the Board to approve the application. Moira O'Neal said that Mr. Mallot informed her that the stovepipe chimneys would be removed from the design and noted that the chimneys were still on the plans. She said that the proposed design simply would not retain her views, but would instead replace her views with screening that would eliminate some of the light into her home. She stated that overgrown screening is I EXHIBIT NO, TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 8/20/09 already an issue amongst these homes and she asked why they should be forced to deal with more potential problems. She said that back yards are private space which residents should be free to enjoy without feeling as though they are being watched. Jim O'Neal reiterated his wife's comments, stressing that privacy and sunlight are vital features of a home's backyard. He said screening is a Catch-22, that too much allows privacy but no sunlight and too little allows sunlight but no privacy. He recognized the difficulties associated with the applicants' lot but said that its size and proximity to neighbors make it an inappropriate location for a 2-story home. He said that the entire "island" between Apollo Road and Mercury Avenue consists of single-story homes, due in part to the elevation differences between these lots. Mr. Mallot reviewed the potential sun blockage that would be caused by the proposed house in both summer and winter. He said that the proposed house and screening would have no effect on either the Boris or O'Neal homes. He said that the Lettrich property already loses a significant amount of sunlight from its own trees and most of the shadow cast by the proposed vegetation would be cast on existing trees. He confirmed that the stovepipe chimneys would be unnecessary, as the applicant has amended the design to use gas fireplaces. He agreed that sunlight is an important feature in every home and said that he intentionally pushed the proposed house forward to ensure that all neighbor's yards meet in one large open space. Chair Chong noted the location of the roof deck and asked if any thought had been given to reducing its size to minimize intrusion on neighbors. Mr. Mallot said that the applicant would be willing to reduce its size somewhat but he did not believe that such a change would make a significant difference. Chair Chong closed the public hearing. Boardmember Doyle said that the Board had asked the applicants for significant concessions and while few initial changes were made, they have now addressed the Board's concerns. He said that if the fences and screening vegetation were eliminated, the neighbors would see more of the house. He observed that there were many beautiful one-story homes in this neighborhood, but on lots that were much different from this site. He noted that there were not many second stories in Belveron just a few years ago. He acknowledged the difficulties associated with the lot and said that if the applicant changed the proposal to please everyone, the result would be an awkward design that the Board would not likely approve. He shared the concern that the roof deck would overlook the neighbors' yard in an intrusive fashion but aside from that issue, he felt that the applicant had satisfied his other concerns and he could support the project. Vice-Chair Tollini concurred with Boardmember Doyle. He said that despite previous concerns regarding the home's relationship to the rest of the neighborhood, he believed that the setbacks and roofline adjustments make it a reasonable design. He said that while this would be a bit of a change for the neighborhood, restricting homeowners to master suite second story additions would be unfair and would not result in functional designs. He viewed the site from all neighboring properties and while he was concerned with the number of objections from the immediately surrounding neighbors, he did not find any individual concern to be compelling TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 EXHIBIT N L 3 8/20/09 • enough to require changes to the house design. He supported staff s recommendation to eliminate the roof deck and said he could support the project with that amendment. Boardmember Wilson said that the Board has historically approved master suite second-floor additions on the periphery of the Belveron neighborhood, and that those projects have not typically been accompanied by potential impacts and neighborhood objections. He reviewed the application's history, noting the applicant's repeated failure to alter their design as recommended by the Board. He said that any project requiring hedges to alleviate issues means the project is too large. He said that he visited the project site and felt that the applicant has proposed the right home on the wrong lot, and he could not support the request. Chair Chong stated that he was strongly against the project at its inception but the applicant has made a number of changes to the original design. He said that the "island" referred to by Mr. O'Neal does not make up the entire neighborhood and a 2-story home would be appropriate there. He said that he liked the home design, stating that the overall mass and scale were appropriate. He said that the applicant addressed his concerns by pulling the front of the house back and sloping the roofs away from the neighbors. He voiced support for the application with exception of the roof deck, which he asked to be reduced in size. He felt that a little landscaping growth would also lessen any impacts from the house. Boardmember Doyle noted that the hedges are proposed height to screen the proposed house from the neighbors' lot that is at a higher elevation. Boardmember Wilson said he was speaking to the proposed vegetation on all 3 sides of the lot. He explained that if an application requires vegetation to lessen the impacts of a proposed design on the views and privacy of neighbors, there are underlying issues that have not been properly addressed. Vice-Chair Tollini strongly urged elimination of the roof deck and suggested that the door should be replaced with a high, rather than full, window. Mr. Watrous directed him to the recommended condition of approval that stipulates that the door should be replaced with a window similar to those on the south side of the home. Chair Chong reopened the public hearing. Mrs. Lettrich questioned and confirmed with Mr. Mallot that the proposed box window would be wood sided with the exception of the outward facing pane. Chair Chong closed the public hearing. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Doyle) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition of approval requiring that the chimneys for the gas fireplaces be eliminated. Vote: 3-1 (Wilson voted no). 2. 22 JUNO ROAD TIBURON D.R.B MINUTES #14 8/20/09 AMIR , ADDITIONS/VARIANCES - CONTINUED TO 9/3/09 4 EXHIBIT NO. I November 13, 2008 1, II ff i~ I I~ Town of Tiburon Dear Members of the Design Review Board: t I -J. We are writing you this letter in reference to the remodel on 22 Mercury. _w....._.-_ --...m Our house is located on the corner of Apollo and Mercury at lot 24 on the proposed site plan directly adjacent to lot 23, the proposed remodel home. Our neighbors, The Dibbles, have been very upfront in sharing their plans and architectural renderings with us. We did not realize the enormity of the remodel until the story poles went up on their property. The purpose of this letter is to get an extension on the design review of 22 Mercury. Our neighbors on 5 Apollo, The O'Neil's, and (Lot 25 on the proposed site plan) are out of the country until the end of this month. They did not get to see the story poles go up before their departure and am certain that they would want to see them before the finalization of this process. We share a fence line with The Dibbles, and are directly affected by the remodel. We have had numerous conversations with The O'Neil's on the expansion of our neighborhood and concerns of having 2 story "mansion" like homes in our neighborhood which is out of character for Beaverton East. Jf possible, we would like an extension on the design review until they have had a chance to see the story poles in place. We consider the Dibbles our friends and understand sensitivity of this process. We understand their desire to expand and have agreed for them to go to the second floor. We would like for them to consider having a lower ceiling on both floors and bringing the roofline down, and possibly extending out, as opposed to extending up. We share a backyard and they would be looking down directly into our backyard from their second floor. We also will loose a lot of direct sunlight, especially into our sun room. We have not had the experience of reviewing plans and were possibly naive about the outcome. We hesitantly signed a form for the Dibbles, which they explained to us was a statement that we had conversation and were shown the floor plans. In hind site, we should have held off in signing anything until the story poles were up. Thank you for your time. Satoko and Je4,f oris 3 Apollo Road Tiburon 415 435-3368 EXHIBIT N0. (Z LATE MAIL # Coopw eop Daniel M Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous: A. November 17, 200"' 9 We have lived at 26 Mercury Avenue for the past 34 years. Our house is immediately next door to the proposed two-story house at #22 Mercury. We are strongly opposed to the size and height of the proposed plans. We would be negatively impacted by the blocking of sunlight to our property and by the invasion of our privacy. 5 There are other two-story houses in Belveron but none as imposing as this and none which so adversely affect their neighbors. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely Albert J & Shirley Anne Lettrich EXHIBIT N0. 13 t D C~- 2- December 9th, 2008 Daniel M Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous and Members of the Design Review Board: We live at 26 Mercury Avenue next to the Dibble Family at 22 M Avenue. ercury We are still opposed to the new plans they have submitted. We really feel that a second story, especially one of this size is for this location and feels it impacts our and blocks inappropriate sunlight on our property: privacy a great deal of Thank you for your consideration: Sincerely, V A " ert an hire Annne`Lettr• Y Bch EXHIBIT N0. to ? . zoF Z Mr. & Mrs. James P. O'Neal 5 Apollo Road Tiburon, CA 94920 10 December 2008 Mr. Daniel M. Watrous, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous, Planning Commissioner ~I) DEC 10 2008 Ji PLANNING DIVISION We are writing to you and the Design Review Board as you consider a proposed project at 22 Mercury Avenue in Tiburon. We were away during your last review of the project and since that time, we have had communications with the Dibble family about their project. Based on those discussions and letters, we understand the Dibble's have made several changes in order to accommodate our property concerns. For those changes, we are appreciative. We welcome and encourage improvements to properties in the neighborhood, so making statements about our concerns is uncomfortable. Our property is surrounded by five properties rather than the normal three. There are three properties on the west side, the middle of which is owned by the Dibbles. Of the five neighbors, only ours and one other have been significantly changed from the original design in the 1950's. Many of these neighbors have been in their homes for 30 plus years. We have one primary concern which relates to the future possible developmental direction of the surrounding properties, which will affect our property. We feel future policy will be set by the decision on this proposal. The Dibbles have proposed a beautiful home, but future development of two story residences around our home would block light for our home and garden, block the views of Ring Mountain and reduce the currently enjoyed privacy in our yard and courtyard space. Thank you for your time and considerations. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. James P. O'Neal EXHIBIT NO. December 10, 2008 Mr. Watrous, City Planner Members of the Design and Review Board Subject: 22 Mercury Dear Mr. Watrous and the members of the Design and Review Board: F E0WE 1 1 2008 NG DIVISION After reviewing the revised plans for 22 Mercury, the only changes I see are lowering the height of the building and removing the balcony at the rear. We, the effected neighbors, met with the Dibbles and expressed our concerns regarding the overall size and privacy issues. I left the meeting with the feeling that they were not willing to downsize the second story. As far as I am,concerned, it basically remains the same as the first proposal. The house is massive and does not fit the character of the neighborhood, single family, single story homes. I petition the Design and Review board to reject the project as proposed. T yo - I Ro McLeod 21 Mercury EXHIBIT NO. 113 Staff Response: As noted above, Belveron East is a neighborhood in transition, with a number of second story additions constructed in recent years. The Town of Tiburon has historically recognized the need and desire to upgrade the older housing stock in the community, as many older homes, such as those found in Belveron East, do not meet the needs of contemporary households in Tiburon. The Town has not made a practice of limiting the amount or expense of additions or new houses as a means of promoting the diversity of housing stock in the community. Limitations on two-story homes have been made when such construction would result in view or privacy impacts or excessive mass and bulk, or when inconsistent with the overall character of the surrounding neighborhood. In contrast to the Bel Aire neighborhood, where few two-story homes exist and such additions have been opposed by many residents, the recent growth in second story additions to homes in Belveron East has been strongly supported by the neighborhood, with the exception of the subject application. PUBLIC COMMENTS During the review of the current and previous applications for 22 Mercury Avenue, the Design Review Board received numerous letters from the appellants raising objections to the project design, along with a volume of letters from other Belveron East residents further away from the site stating support for the project. Copies of letters from the appellants to the Design Review Board have been attached as Exhibits 12-26, while copies of the individual letters of support to the Board are available for review in the application file at the Planning Division office. All letters to the Town Council that have been received regarding the subject appeal are attached. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board applied the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of this project. The Board determined that the revised two-story house design was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the changes made as a result of the revised design were substantial enough to minimize unreasonable intrusion of the second story on nearby homes. The Board evaluated the potential privacy impacts from the surrounding homes and determined that these concerns were not substantial enough to require changes to the design of the proposed house. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure; 2) Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 3) Direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 18, 2008 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 9 December 11, 2008 RE: 22 Mercury Avenue Dear Mr. Watrous and the Members of the Design Review Board: pE0t E9WE DEC 1 1 2008 PLANNING DIVISION We are writing in opposition to the two-story remodel at 22 Mercury. We have been opposed to the massiveness of the project since the story poles went up. We had our reservations prior, but did not realize the enormity of the project until we visually saw the story poles. We have reviewed the new submitted plans, and appreciate the effort the Dibbles made in lowering the height of the building, but we do not notice a significant difference in the overall size of the proposed plan. Although adjustments were made on the roofline, it still seems to be high and top heavy for the location of this site and we do not see much change in the footprint of the drawings and see no effort to minimize the intrusion to the neighbors. We wanted to thank the members of the design review board for making us aware of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4.2.7 at the Design Review Meeting held on November 20th. We feel that this zoning ordinance should be applied to the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury and do not feel that the Dibbles have taken this ordinance into consideration when proposing their plans. In the last design review meeting held on November 20th, the members of the design review board recommended to the Dibbles, reducing the size of the project and compromising the size of the second floor. Aside from the height of the project, they have not made an effort to reduce the size of the overall plans. This massiveness of this design does not fit in line with the characteristics of our neighborhood. Since our last design review meeting, we have had some time to digest the proposed plan and have walked around our neighborhood to see other remodeled homes. The design of the other two story remodeled homes in our neighborhood do not feel as intrusive to their surrounding neighbors as compared to the proposed plan. We feel that for the lot size of the property at 22 Mercury, a two story home, especially of the proposed plan is not appropriate. Our property on 3 Apollo Road will be affected on the levels of sunlight and privacy. We would loose seeing the sky from our 3rd bedroom/office and the sunroom. Our son, who is a pre-teen, will loose most of his privacy from his bathroom, as well as from his study/play room which is located in the sunroom. The property at 22 Mercury is slightly elevated in comparison to our property. With the proposed two stories, we would loose our privacy when enjoying a meal on our deck along with the sunlight. EXHIBIT N0. C (0 P, Z, If possible, we would like Mr. Watrous and any of the board members to see the proposed plan from our property. Although our house is located to the south east of 22 Mercury, our house is at a different angle and is not parallel to the existing house or the proposed plans. Part of our home would be affected by late afternoon sunlight. This is hard to determine from the street view. Thank you for your consideration. Sato"'-- nd Jeff Boris 3 Apollo Road 435-3368 EXHIBIT No, l (c> P ZO ~ Dan Watrous From: Rod McLeod [MCL11 c@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:59 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Dibble JUN - 1 2009 PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Watrous It is my understanding that Sam & Jennifer Dibble are planning to resubmit plans that have previously been rejected by the Design & Review Board. I, as well as my neighbors feel these plans should not be reconsidered. My wife and I live 21 Mercury Ave, directly across the street from the proposed Dibble project. It is our feeling that to have a project of this size right in our front yard takes away the atmosphere of our small neighborhood. If the Design & Review Board decides to reconsider these same plans, than we request that an onsite review should be done at the homes that have major privacy issues. The story poles that have been in place for over six months are an eyesore to the neighborhood and should be removed Rod & Nancy McLeod 21 Mercury Ave. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 EXHIBIT N0._~ Daniel M Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, Ca.94920 Re The Dibble property Dear Mr. Watrous: June 6,2009 JUN - 9 2009 j„ P LA N t,11104 G eS 4 I::afiai We understand the Dibbles have submitted the same plans that they submitted originally and which were denied last December. Their plans have not changed and neither have our objections or those of the neighbors who are directly affected We have lived at 26 Mercury Avenue for the past 34 years. Our house is immediately next door to the proposed two-story house at #22 Mercury. We are strongly opposed to the size and height of the proposed plans. We would be negatively impacted by the blocking of sunlight to our property and by the invasion of our privacy. We respectfully request that the Design Review Board make an onsite inspection from our back garden. It is the only way they can see the negative impact this structure would cause. A drive by is not sufficient We can be reached at 435-9884. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely Ll Albert j. & Shirley Ane Lettrich EXHIBIT NO, 16 Dan Watrous From: Rod McLeod [mcll 1 @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 8:39 PM To: Dan Watrous' Subject: Re: Dibbles letter of May 6th, 2009 JUN - 9 2009 -3`vp4 Mr. Dan Watrous, Members of the Design & Review Board. it Belveron may be a challenging neighborhood, because of its substandard lots and outdated homes" What an insult to so many neighbors who have remodeled or rebuilt at great expense. They have designed homes in sync with the neighborhood, not a two story structure that looks like it belongs on an inverted hillside rather than on a small Quarter Acre lot that is surrounded by three other neighbors. One of those neighbors tore down their "outdated home on a substandard lot" and rebuilt their dream home. Now their privacy will be invaded as well as the other two neighbors if the Dibbles get their way. Perhaps someone should remind the Dibbles that at the last meeting of the Design & Review Board . " Chair Teiser" stated that it was the effected neighbors concerns that would be considered, not signed petitions and letters written by people who are not affected by this proposed project. I feel strongly that an onsite review from the backyards of the three neighbors, 26 Mercury, 3 Apollo and 5 Apollo should happen prior to the June 18th 2009 meeting so that the board members can see for themselves the impact that a house of this height would have on these three homes. Nancy McLeod 21 Mercury Ave. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 EXHIBIT NO. Lq rage i or i Dan Watrous From: Satoko Boris [saboris c@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:59 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Proposed remodel on 22 Mercury June 8, 2009 RE: 22 Mercury Avenue Dear Mr. Watrous and the Members of the Design Review Board: We are writing in opposition to the proposed two story remodel at 22 Mercury. We ask you, Mr. Watrous and the members of the design review board to have an on site inspection of the proposed remodel from inside of our properties. The visual of the project from the outside street is a very different one from the ones we have from our properties which neighbor the proposed project. We have had the experience of living with the story poles for 7 months and have a better understanding of how much privacy and sky light that would be taken from us. The property at 22 Mercury is slightly elevated in comparison to our property. The fence line is situated in the only place where we can sit and enjoy our privacy on our property. We understand that the Dibbles have made no revisions in the plans that were not approved by the board in December. We first became aware of the design Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4.2.7 at the Design Review Meeting held on November 20th. We feel that this zoning ordinance should be applied to the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury and do not feel that the Dibbles have taken this ordinance in consideration when proposing their plans. In the first design review meeting held on November 20th, the members of the design review board recommended to the Dibbles, reducing the size of the project and compromising the size of the 2nd floor at the next design review board meeting held on December 18t`, the board recommended a different plan to be submitted. The type of house the Dibbles are proposing does not fit in line with the characteristics of our neighborhood. Since our last design review meeting, we have had some time to digest the proposed plan and walk around our neighborhood to see the remodeled homes. The design of the other 2 story remodeled homes in our neighborhood do not feel as intrusive to their surrounding neighbors as compared to the proposed plan. We would like Mr. Watrous and any of the board members to see the proposed plan from our property. Our lots are situated in an unusual space and the south light is hard to project from the street side of Mercury. Thank you for your consideration. Satoko and Jeff Boris 3 Apollo Road 435-3368 EAHIBIT NO. 6/10/2009 Mrs. & Mrs. James P. O'Neal 5 Apollo Road Tiburon, CA 94920 tv t G i ! P f JUN L 1X009 Mr. Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon -w 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 June I L 2009 LATE MAI Dear Mr. Watrous and the Design Review Board Members, It has come to our attention that Mr. and Mrs. Sam Dibble of 22 Mercury Avenue, Tiburon, have resubmitted plans previously submitted to this Board. We would like to formally request an on-site inspection of the proposed plans as seen from our property at 5 Apollo Road, specifically from our family room, the back yard and patio area. It is our feeling and experience that the plans as proposed will cause our property to be adversely affected in comfort and value. It is important that the Board understand the nature of the property lines and the spaces in question. In our neighborhood it is commonly known that when you are in the front of your property, social interactions will occur and are welcome. Conversely, when one is inside the home or in the back of the house, there is an inherent expectation of privacy. Our home was remodeled to an "H" design in 2004 with privacy for ourselves and our neighbors in mind. The currently proposed second story will make our entire backyard area and part of our patio viewable and exposed to the Dibble property leaving us with no external private space. Also with the current proposal, our one westerly facing window in our kitchen/family room will be visually covered from the sky on one half of the window viewing area. This is the most used area in our home. Photos are included with this letter. Please consider the following directions and considerations taken by other residents who have remodeled in our area of the neighborhood. Also, please note that Paul Ballora was the architect who drew the design for our home at 5 Apollo, and he was the same architect used by many in the neighborhood. He, our realtor and neighbors we spoke to before making a design made it clear to us that a two story was not welcome in this neighborhood. The perimeter or Venus Court area had been "traditionally" the only areas where Design Review Boards had allowed two story structures. The following quotes are all from Design Review Meeting Minutes on public record. EXHIBIT NO.~_ 4/18/02 - 27 Apollo Road The proposed additions would extend to within 6 feet, 11 inches of the side property line, which is less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in this zone. The additions would also increase the lot coverage on the site to 31.9%, which would be greater than the 30% maximum lot coverage. Variances are therefore requested for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage. Boardmember Beales stated this is a typical project for the neighborhood, where variances have been grated instead of building a second story. He noted that the addition would continue the existing setback, and would be modest in scope. Boardmember Figour stated the changes to the house add to the neighborhood. Mature landscaping on the side helps to screen the addition. He said that the addition would help to improve that part of the elevation. Boardmember Teiser stated this is a minimal expansion; other nearby houses have lesser setbacks, and the side setback is a continuation of the building. Boardmember McLaughlin stated the trading off lot coverage for floor area is appropriate. This is a substandard lots, and the additions are not offensive to neighbors. 2/20/03 - 9 Apollo Road Paul Ballora, architect, discussed the project and stated the attempt was to keep the project in scale with the neighborhood and keep a one-story project. He added, this lot is smaller than many other neighboring ,lots. Boardmember Beales noted, historically, the Town has granted lot coverage variances in lieu of constructing second story additions in this neighborhood. Boardmember McLaughlin concurred, and thought that this was a great floor plan. Chair Figour stated that this was a good project. He drove around the neighborhood looking at similar projects, and noted that the front yards in this area are not particularly useable. He thought that fences in the front yards are often more obstructive than building additions. 4/18/04 - 63 Mercury Avenue The back yard is a valuable area and he understands why the owners want to retain it. The front yards are much less usable for the residents than the back yards. The owners have a problem in that the house is not parallel to the property line and variances have historically been supported. 4/15/04 - 42 Mercury Avenue Paul Ballora, architect, stated that this is the ninth project he has worked on in the neighborhood. He said that the goals of the neighborhood are to maintain one-story houses and preserve yard space, and that the neighbors support this project. Boardmember Figour stated that this was a particularly good design scheme. He felt that back yards are more important for the residents, and that shortening the driveways should have been done originally with these homes. He said that the design solution would still leave sufficient space for a front yard and would make a nice streetscape. He noted that the appearance of a EXHIBIT NO. `Zl V 2 C) t-- C.. similar addition next door indiuu.ces how good this would look. He stated that he supports the application. Boardmember Bird stated that she visited the site, and felt that the design would let the applicants better use their rear yard. She supported the request. 5/20/04 -104 Jefferson Drive (The underlined portions were part of the Dibble proposal. We have added further considerations in bold from the public record. The additional considerations are for the back of the property specifically. In the case of the Dibble's proposal, the back of their property is not a park but rather our backyard.) Boardmember Beales stated that this would be a pretty massive building,... Boardmember Figour stated that ...the house would fit in with what is happening in Belveron and would make the neighborhood less monotonous in design. He noted that there is distance and trees between the proposed house and the residence at 5 Mercury Avenue, which has a second story. Boardmember O'Donnell stated that this is a lovely design which would be a big improvement to the neighborhood. He disagreed with the objections of the neighbor at 5 Mercury Avenue, stating that the project is not in their primary view corridor. (The owners at 5 Mercury Avenue were concerned about their view, we are concerned about our personal privacy in our adjacent backyard.) Chair Teiser stated that the design would enhance the neighborhood. He said that the neighbor on Mercury Avenue is separated from this site by the park and many trees, and the house would not be in their primary view. He said that the Design Review Board should be careful about designing the interior of an applicant's house as long as the application conforms to the zoning code and does not require variances and exceptions. Boardmember Figour added that a neighbor behind the park is concerned about the height of the building. He felt that the removal of the tree should not be approved. 4/7/05 -106 Jefferson Drive Chair Beales stated the applicant has done a good job in revising the design. Additional roofing over the first floor breaks up the fagade. He appreciates the potential for a line of houses up the street, but noted that second stories are accepted on the perimeter of neighborhoods though not on interior neighborhood homes. (Please review attached map of Belveron East which highlights this fact) We thank you for your time and look forward to setting a date for the on-site inspection. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. James P. O'Neal c f EXHIBIT NO. 24 P. 3 be ( o Views of the current Dibble proposal from our backyard. EXHIBIT NO. 2t T: q OF Please note grade change and retaining wall. Right of picture is the back of our property. Retaining wall is two feet in height. View of the current proposal from our only westerly window in our kitchen/family room which is our most used area of the home. Please note the ivy is 7'6" in heitxHIBIT NO.-7-1 F.5OF ( n /A5 e o A& ~O ~r ~v ~P ~.+ws Q w p O / © G O _ 44 a tTQi I i~ a . ~ A ~ o I~ U „ r la~oa , , ~ SAN n. ~ ~ , (off h b orrw r y ~ ie• aa.•I® ~ ® aY O © ~ a ~ ~Y Ys qO♦{/1 !la " \ e IMP, got ® O a ° Y r S• W D) , c° s .a'K +raaa. 7 t ♦ A .a 'Awe P `ay~ q'~t~ti3lY ° Yr .ia• ~ •aa» F ~ R y o w dq 'yam \ r 4 y~ 0• oe • ~ ~ p~ \dp \q 4 •'4wy •.`^4 a~ wavy ~ A e° ~ ~ ~Q i e d ~ 7l • • BYO wiay M irtl Q ~1 0 L~• ° ®ea ~ YI a° ai { y ~3. ~ ~ pM ta° ~7V Ae -I `a• 44 t:l y {7; a0 : ®e i R® A R i C ~ i.awwaar 2 04 i O •a . `k • s C M aw . 6p e'fa, a In • ► ~ ' . ~ w y It O ® ~4 a w 4 sa •y N „ ® ~ • a . N f • ~ ti : ♦ ® ~ ~ b a ` ^'J•, ; ♦ ~ y'° Q Maa •+a. N O It •°✓:.+1e a~ Q aaM < ~ ~iQ a.ra, aaas. ~ a 2 ' J ~ O ~O d U I ~ mo e i _ ~ e~ Q W f 4 B= 2 - + , m Z LU ® aa. ~ o u ~o a° U :t Mt M W 14 .13 V F O N W O C ~ y0yy C~ Q c 1 1 Ir 0 l•• V aF L O O~ " ~W O Z QQ ^ , 0 A C J e v~ J O Z ~ ~ ~ U (Po z o C q4 O E a 00 z Page 1 of '-2 Dan Watrous From: Rod McLeod [mcll 1 @earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:59 PM To: Dan Watrous; S Boris; Ann Lettrich; moirao o'neill Subject: Fwd: Dibble Project Begin forwarded message: From: Rod McLeod <mcl11C earthlink.net> Date: July 5, 2009 4:56:38 PM PDT To: Rod McLeod <mcll 1(a)-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Dibble Project On Jul 4, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Rod McLeod wrote: Begin forwarded message: 1 1 t F. TL .J U L - 6 2009 ~ From: Rod McLeod <mcll 1C&earthlink.net> Datb: July 4, 2009 9:22:22 PM PDT To: S Boris <saboris@pacbell.net>, moirao o'neill <moirao comcast.net>, Ann Lettrich <lettrich@pacbel1.net> Subject: Dibble Project Mr. Watrous I may be confused, but I hope you can clear this matter up for me. I understand that at the last meeting in June, the Design & Review board by a vote of 3 to 2 rejected the Dibble Project as they had again submitted the same plans with no changes that were rejected in a prior meeting. I was led to believe that your office would write a resolution for the Design Board at July 2 meeting to submit to Town Council rejecting this project. At the last meeting July 2nd, The Design Board reversed itself with only 3 members present out of the 5. The two absent have had problems with the design from the beginning. This action by the Board shows that the neighbors who attended all the meetings wrote letters of concern regarding the size and privacy issues, have been completely ignored. Jim Malott an Architect, who I believe solicited the Dibbles to become their architect and help them with this project. Never attended any of the prior meetings now it seems he was able to sway the board in his favor and the Dibbles. EXHIBIT NO. -2-2, r L V r- Z 7/6/2009 Page 2 of 2 I realize these people on the Board do a great service for the city, but they also have an obligation to the neighbors who live and pay taxes in the city of Tiburon. Mr. Watrous, when you answer this e-mail please list the names of the town council as I want to raise my concerns with them regarding how this matter has been handled. Rod McLeod 21 Mercury Ave. EXHIBIT NO. Q, zor 2-- 7/6/2009 Daniel M Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, Ca.94920 Re The Dibble property August 7, 2009 AUG 1 2 2009 Dear Mr. Watrous & Members of the Design Review Board: As you know, we live at 26 Mercury Avenue, immediately next door to the Dibble property. We are very much opposed to the new plans they have submitted. As with the previous plans we would be negatively impacted by the blocking of sunlight to our property and the invasion of our privacy. Many homes in Belveron have been remodeled handsomely with three or four bedrooms without adding a second story. The few that have second stories do not impose on the neighbors, as this house would. A two-story home of this size on this, to quote Mr. Sam Dibble, "substandard lot" is overwhelming. There is not one two- story house on this "island" of land surrounded by Mercury and Apollo. We respectively request that you give priority to the concerns of the immediate neighbors and not to those people who can not see the Dibble property from their houses but who have their own agendas Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Anne & Albert Lettrich EXHIBIT NO. 2-3_ Dan Watrous From: Rod McLeod [mci11 c@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:36 AM To: Dan Watrous; S Boris; Ann Lettrich; moirao o'neill Subject: Dibble Project Mr. Watrous: We just received the new plans for the Dibble Project. These plans as well as the original plans have the same amount of impact on the surrounding neighbors. Personally, we feel these plans are worse than the originals. From our property at 21 Mercury we would be looking at five different Roof Lines. Mr. Malott's design moves the project forward but the overall size is still there. The planting of shrubs and trees to camouflage the impact of this home is amusing due to the fact that it would take several years for the majority of this landscape to mature The Dibbles and Mr. Malott again have ignored the D&R Board recommendations made at previous meetings. The D&R Board had suggested only a second story Master Bedroom and Bath This plan shows three Bedrooms and two Baths and a deck which had been previously rejected by the D&R Board. Hopefully this design will also be rejected by the D&R Board. Rod & Nancy McLeod EXHIBIT NO. Tq- 1 CL6%, 1 Vl Dan Watrous From: Satoko Boris [saboris@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:31 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 22 Mercury proposed plans rip AUG 1 3 2009 August 11, 2009 Dear Mr. Waltrous and the Members of the Design Review Board: We are writing you in regards to the new submitted plans for 22 Mercury. Although the new plans have taken one bedroom off of the 2nd floor and moved it down to the 1 st, the proposed home is still, massive and intrusive from our property and out of character for our neighborhood. With the new plans, our privacy will totally be taken away from our backyard deck. We will still have the same light issues as the original plan and not be able to see any skyline from our backyard. Because the new plans have pushed the proposed house forward, we will loose more privacy from our home than we would have from the original plans. The new plans propose 9 windows and French doors opening towards our property and 4 windows, and a deck with French doors on the 2nd floor. The property at 22 Mercury is elevated 3 to 4 feet above our property. There is a distance of 14 feet between our homes. The master bedroom with the proposed deck will be right on top of our son's bathroom and shower window and he will have no privacy if any windows are to be placed with the proposed plan. Our home office will also be in the same predicament. We enjoy our privacy in our backyard where we spend a good deal of our time. We have had to make revisions with our deck area as not to feel so imposed upon with the story poles looming over us. The Dibbles have made no effort to respect the concerns of the immediate neighbors and have not discussed any new plans before submitting them. (Mr. Malott did meet with us after the plans were already in place). 8/13/2009 EXHIBIT N0. 2-5- T i ot=~ Z In the 15 + years that we have lived in this neighborhood, we have been very supportive of our neighbors who have remodeled their homes in a tasteful manner befitting to the characteristic of our neighborhood. We understand that the design review board also encourages remodels to improve the value of our properties. We hope that the design review board will also assist in maintaining the privacy of the remodels, which help to maintain the characteristic of Belveron East. Thank you for your time. Jeff and Satoko Boris 3 Apollo Road EXHIBIT N0. 2S F` 2 ©f== 8/13/2009 Jim and Moira O'Neal 5 Apollo Road Tiburon, CA 94920 415.435.4793 Mr. Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous and Design Review Board Members, 'ill: ( A U G 13 2009 ` PLANNING DIVISION It has come to our attention that Mr. and Mrs. Sam Dibble at 22 Mercury Drive have resubmitted new plans for design review. For as much as we appreciate the downsized alterations from the previous proposals, this latest plan does not alleviate the nearest neighbors concerns. We would like to formally request an on site inspection of the new story poles from inside our home at 5 Apollo Road (family room and one bedroom), as well as from our yard. By being in the yard of the homes at 5 Apollo, 3 Apollo and 26 Mercury, the members of the staff and design review board will,be able to get a good feeling for the size and mass of the proposed home. The three primary areas of concern that we have for this proposal are: 1. Site Plan Adequacy - The proposed home is larger than nearly all of the two story homes on Venus Court that have larger lots and are on a hillside that allows vegetation screening that provides less intrusion into each other's yards. The proposed home is on a small, nearly flat lot that is on the end of the "island" of homes between Mercury and Apollo that currently has no two story homes. Nineteen of the thirty-one homes on this "island" have been remodeled or updated, with all of them remaining one story. As one looks at the layout of this island, an observer notices that the proposed house is sandwiched between two other lots, while the rest of the island has equally divided lots down the remaining length of the island. To place a two story structure on this lot would not be in keeping with the generally accepted development on this particular island in this particular area of Belveron East. 2. Site Layout - The impact of a two story structure in this location would unduly diminish the privacy and sunlight of their three adjacent neighbors, as well as, reduce the view of neighbors across the street of Ring Mountain and other open space. In speaking with the architect, Mr. Jim Malott, looking at the story poles and looking at the proposed plans, the landscape plan is extensive with many trees and hedges for screening purposes. In speaking with professionals in real estate and landscape design, we have been informed that whether the shade comes from a structure or from mature vegetation, the loss of light from the West will impact our ability to grow EXHIBIT NO. 2 (0 <oC=3 plants in our back yard and maintain valuable sunlight in our family room. Light and air are important values in the enjoyment of all homes. Given the nature and importance of backyard space as an extension of the home in Belveron, light, air and privacy are critical to the enjoyment of each family's back yard space. For as much as we respect the right of land owners' to build and develop their property as they see fit, the guiding principles of the general plan are in place to serve all residents equally. The guidelines are not meant to allow any one person's desire to design or develop a structure that would overshadow the privacy and sunlight of another. In this case, multiple neighboring homeowners would be losing views, sunlight and privacy. The proposed structure and landscaping would greatly diminish the light and air flow to our home and yard. 3. Neighborhood Character Guideline - "The height, size and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." We feel the current proposal does not meet the criteria of this guideline. Thank you for all the time you are giving to the community overseeing the continued evolution of our Town. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. James P. O'Neal 7 EXHIBIT NO. } y. tea. ~ ~n ~ ~0i' r~/ \ti ~•ry \ O \y _ srr.. ~ t ~ S ti ~[N pib O 1~. A, 4 p \O V f ~ ®A ~ t •nf ~ e° ry, e ~ 1~ Oy Y w ~i !I ~~~M - N! ®Oiry v ~ ~ A Dry `Q .fi ^ `Vl ° 0 ti d 4b y o Cd,~ .a b N 4r ~ v ` o b `0 00j o. g~ bb 6 of i~ ~ rof Z ~ ~'4+Cf~y m~ - ro e,4ry ~ ^ a \ 0e 4b V C~d h' NAP lak O ► aqr e..- wit -154 oov o.a.Of,V v r 0 ~ Q ~ a ~ brat! ~ ~ n' ~ ^'•►'•r>ua• /u: S" w.:: w y~ a h f ~ N~ V I tt[ s,w ss ~ or Adnougiv 4 0 1 A U 1 Z 0 C CL v S ti it s a. nr•+• or 0 4 61f M i ~ 1S ~ I ~ Q /O'►••!S~ ,~/.6nSr.1riM y ~n\..w jlr v'l9 •r ~J-q_;(. 6 1~.k,` : - ~ ~8' B ~ ~ ~i N.p Ji'N 3• (I~ f a C _ar n a [ryc b o ~\°1 by 0 0 113 n [n ~ p . ® v ti os ti ~ Dra .l \ \ ° :D it ~ .•i1 " O 4}r Q~ O M1 a ~5,, Lb os °s O m D N 1' l•M ceca OO O z,'c c F HJ` O v V © o~i K co nec is ° `o ~ • `1 a 107 M_ot r+~r z S• O 0 o M •0.• r A,f ~ ~ c o ores ~1 ~ '1-' . w ~ .\i ~ to~.lP 6.2 rr6,b ~ ~ Y O ~ ~ rr•~`r V~ • n ON n p r ry P ` J~~~ N O • Y Lf) n CV rr[ °ie O o P of °S•.. ~ \ y° v " ^ •w ~o .W "•r°, c ON ~e ~r •r t icy v V 1 o a ~ o.~~ N O[t/. ry O v°° _ rr[f ii. CL (,T - 14 -0 Ln p~• .d. 1'J O ~r ! ti N O O N m H 64. WAZ at cn b` os ~ q!to. [toc [p ~ ~"o ~ Q~< •oOO ~ CC C u °ar ~ t t2 10 rrti O . + p rf"rl..!~ °o m s 2 ~h w • ° IrJ tot \i• \ ! C ° b = L ` Mark Talamantes and Karen Carrera 22 Apollo Road Tiburon, CA 94920 I October 01, 2009 - / r L4i Town of Tiburon Attn: Dan Waltrous 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Support of Remodel and 2nd story property at 22 Mercury Ave. Nearing, Wednesday, October 29, 2009 Dear Tiburon Town Council: We write to express our support for the second-story remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue. The neighbors who appealed the decision of the Design Review Board argue that the Town Council should not permit second story homes in the center of the Belveron East community. This center area includes presumably the homes that do not abut the Belveron boarders, which include homes between Juno and Mercury, including all of the homes on Apollo Road. Factually speaking, four (4) second story homes have been approved in this "Island" area, which is a term used by the appellants in their papers. In fact, our second-story remodeled home at 22 Apollo Road was approved by unanimous vote of the Design Review Board in 2004. We hope the Council appreciates that the Belveron neighborhood is evolving. We strongly believe that potential resistance to two story homes in the flat "island" of Belveron is unfounded and unfair. Importantly, such a limiting view by this Council would negatively impact the property values of Belveron homes. Unlike the homes in the more restrictive BelAire community, Belveron East is home to not less than 16 two- story homes. Belveron West is home to many more. In addition, unlike the BelAire community, the styles of the new homes in Belveron are excitingly diverse. Indeed, the building of more second story homes is inevitable. Our neighborhood is thriving. At the same time, we recognize why our good neighbors at lower Apollo and Mercury have voiced such strong opposition to the proposed home. Our lot at 22 Apollo Road is 6,695 sq.ft., which is much smaller than the Dibble property at 22 Mercury, which spreads 7,884 sq.ft. The lot square footage of the surrounding homes around the Dibble property are also significantly larger (3 Apollo is 7,623 sq.ft; 5 Apollo is 8,208 sq.ft, 26 Mercury is 7,504 sq.ft,) compared to the abutting homes to my property (20 Apollo is 6,935 sq.ft.; and 24 Apollo is 8,004 sq.ft.), respectively. Due to the limited size of our lot, we were forced to move our remodel forward into the lot and add a second story. It seems the home at issue before the Council at 22 Mercury has more options in terms of maximizing its square footage by reducing the mass of the second story. However, as recognized by the Design Review Board in finally approving the project, Sam and EXHIBIT NO. 2-7 P, t OF 2r Jennifer Dibble have gone to great lengths to address the complaints by their immediate neighbors reducing the size of the original proposal and making other modifications. I wish Sam and Jennifer Dibble had worked more closely with their neighbors when they started this project. However, they have since made significant changes to their original proposal as a result of the input and the suggestions by Design Review Board. Hopefully now, we can soon put this issue behind us. The lesson has been learned. If the question before the Council is whether second story homes belong is Belveron, the answer is yes. There can be no other response: • The Design Review Board has set precedent by approving many second story homes, including our home, in Belveron. This precedent cannot be ignored. • The forward thinking by the Design Review Board has added value, both in terms of architectural style and financial value, to the Belveron neighborhood. There is no going back. • Four second story homes in the "island" center of Belveron have been approved. Two second story home have been approved in this center island area since 2002 (22 Apollo Road and 29 June Road). In light of this precedent, the Council must support Design Review Board's approval. • Finally, a reversal of the decision by this Council will no doubt adversely affect property values in Belveron, which simply is not acceptable. This Council should continue to welcome architectural diversity and creativity into our neighborhood, including 2 story homes. We urge your vote in support and request the Council to support and uphold the decision of the Design Review Board. Thank you for your, ohsid Mark TalarKar(tes, Karen Carrera EXHIBIT NO.-'2-7?- 2 Page 1 of 1 Dare Watrous From: angela jorgensen [angeiajorgensen@sbcgiobal.net] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:50 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: jidibble@yahoo.com Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue Dear Mr. Watrous, My husband and i live at 52 Mercury Avenue and we are writing to you and the Town Council to express our continued support for the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue that was approved by the Design Review Board after much consideration. We believe the Dibble's project would be a welcome enhancement to the neighborhood and highly urge the Town Council to uphold the Design Review Board's decision. Sincerely, Angela and Clark Jorgensen EXHIBIT N0.?9 10/51Q1009 Dan Watrous From: Danny Gallagher [gdgall@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 4:36 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue Dear Mr. Watrous and members of the Design Review Board, I am a Belveron neighbor and live at 20 Juno Road. I would like to extend my support of the project at 22 Mercury Avenue. I have reviewed plans submitted by the Dibble family and believe they have made many concessions and compromises to work with their neighbors. It is important that homes in our neighborhood can be remodeled to live and grow in. There are several split level homes in Belveron and the Dibble home would compliment and upgrade the neighborhood nicely. I feel the Town Council has put a lot of work into the best outcome of this project and they should uphold the Design Review Board's decision at its October 21 meeting Your sincerely, Danny and Eithne Gallagher 20 Juno Road, Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. Zf~ Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Suzanna Bell [suzanna@swedishroom.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:41 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: jldibble@yahoo.com; Nick Bell (NICK BELL - NORCAL) Subject: RE: 22 Mercury Supporting letter Dear Mr. Watrous, We live at 26 Apollo Road and we are writing to you and the Town Council today to express our fullest support for the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue that was approved by the Design Review Board after four hearings (and after many concessions and compromises were made by the Dibbles). We think it's important to welcome improvement and change in the Belveron neighborhood and strongly support people who are making an effort in doing so. We believe that this raises the property value for all of us and improve the esthetics of the neighborhood. We urge the Town Council to uphold the Design Review Board's decision at its October 21 meeting. Sincerely, Suzanna and Nick Bell EXHIBIT N0.3> 0-~ 10/6/2009 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Niran Amir [niranamir@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:01 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: jldibble@yahoo.com Subject: 22 Mercury s Dear Mr. Watrous: We live at 22 Juno and we're writing to you and the Town Council today to express our support for the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue that was approved by the Design Review Board after four hearings. We have read the appeal submitted and are especially concerned by section 2 B, we don't feel home values should be a deciding facton we oppose the notion that one should not remodel their home as it might make their home value rise "too much". We attended the last meeting where the Board approved the plans and recall a statement made by the chair that the process is all about compromise, we agree and feel the Dibbles have made needed concessions to make the plan work for everyone involve, as someone who recently went through the same process we appreciate their willingness to compromise and urge the Town Council to uphold the Design Review Board's decision at its October 21 meeting. Sincerely, Niran & Daniel Amir 22 Juno Road EXHIBIT NO.-31--- 10/6/22009 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: ben elliott [bgelliott@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:06 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Support for 22 Mercury Avenue project Dear Mr. Watrous: OCT - 7 t My family and I live at 8 Juno Road in Tiburon and I am writing to you and the Town Council today to express my support for the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue that was approved by the Design Review Board after four hearings. I urge the Town Council to uphold the Design Review Board's decision at its October 21 meeting. Sincerely, Benjamin Elliott EXHIBIT N0. ~ Z-- 10/7/2009 ragc 1 ul 1 Dan Watrous From: Katie Vasicek [katie vasicek@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 8:33 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: jennifer dibble Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue Project Dear Mr. Watrous: We live at 20 Apollo Road in the Belveron neighborhood of Tiburon. We are writing to you and the Town Council today to reaffirm our support for the proposed remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue. We believe that this remodel will help to beautify and add value to our neighborhood. This project was approved by the Design Review Board after four hearings (and after many concessions and compromises were made by the Dibbles). We urge the Town Council to uphold the Design Review Board's decision at its October 21 meeting. Sincerely, Katie and Rick Vasicek EXHIBIT N0. 33 10/8/2009 rdgu 1 ul 1 Dan Watrous From: Jennifer Barnes benbames@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:02 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Jennifer Dibble Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue Dear Mr. Watrous - We are writing to you and the Tiburon Town Council today to express our unconditional and whole- hearted support for the Dibble's remodel of their home at 22 Mercury Avenue. The Dibbles have done everything the Design Review Board asked of them and have completely revised their architectural plans to do it. The group of neighbors that is appealing the DRB's approval continues to raise the same objections that were fully vetted by the DRB over the full year that it is has taken to get to. this point. It is time to uphold the approval of this project and let our neighborhood continue on its path to serving the needs of modern Tiburon families. Since our house is part of the "island" that the appealing neighbors seem to somehow think exists in Belveron, we feel compelled to share with you a story from our own remodel. When our project was before the Design Review Board a few years ago, we were criticized for requesting a lot coverage variance and for not proposing a second story. We cannot help but share with the Town Council the irony in the fact that the appellants' main criticism of the Dibbles' project is that they are proposing a second story and are not requesting a lot coverage variance. While a second story wasn't what we wanted for ourselves, we feel strongly that each of our neighbors should have the right to build a house that they love, especially when it improves the quality of the neighborhood and allows young, growing families to stay in Tiburon. The fact that the Dibbles' plan does not require a single variance is testimony to their thoughtful, careful and thoroughly planned project. We once again urge the Town Council to approve the project at 22 Mercury Avenue. Jeff and Jennifer Barnes 9 Apollo Road EXHIBIT NO. 10/8/2009 ' I t, F!a LATE MAIL U L O C T 1 3 2009 Dear Members of the Town Council: av We would like to make a formal invitation to you for an on site visit from the 4 properties at 3 Apollo, 5 Apollo, 26 Mercury and 21 Mercury. Please also note the history of the proposed project as you review the copies of this project file: November 20th - The board recommended (4 to 0) to continue with revised plans December 18th The board recommended (3 to 1) to deny plans. Mr. Dibble recanted his desire not to make changes The board then using Robers Rule Of Order reversed the denial and revoted (4 to 0) to continue with revised plans February 5th Continued to March 5th t Continued to April 161h April 16th New Dwelling - Withdrawn June 18th Exact plans which were denied at December 18th Meeting were submitted Application Denied (3 to 2) July 2nd -Resolution of denial prepared by Mr. Watrous - over turned 2 of the board members in favor of the resolution were absent. Mr. Watrous recommended continuing the resolution. Mr. Malott , their newly appointed architect, asked for a continuence instead. Mr. Watrous recommended a new application with plans be submitted. August 20th New plans submitted - No new fees were paid Approved by DRB (3 to 1) Mr, Kricensky was absent Please note that former Chair of Design Review Board, Frank Doyle, never had an on site visit with any of the appealing neighbors. Thank you for your time. Jeff and Satoko Boris 3 Apollo Road Jim and Moira O'Neal 5 Apollo Road Albert and Anne Lettrich 26 Mercury Rod and Nancy McLeod 21 Mercury October 13, 2009 Tiburon Town Council L LATE MAI Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Blvd. 4~,66611 Tiburon, CA 94920 a s 0 C T 1 4 2009 Dear Town Council, A recent approval by the Design Review Board has created much discussion in Belveron East. It was the approval of construction of a new dwelling at 22 Mercury Avenue. Many neighbors close to this property and further away are wondering what this could mean for them should a similar situation arise next door to their home. While everyone has their own opinion about whether second stories should be approved or not, variances allowed or not, or new architectural styles introduced or not, most who I spoke to felt preserving their friendships and relationships with their neighbors was paramount. Having lived in Belveron East for over 10 years, I can say that one of the many joys of living in Tiburon is my community in Belveron East. My family and I can take a stroll down any street and run into a neighbor, and enjoy a great conversation while our children play with their child, dog and/or cat. When our children leave the house to play in the neighborhood we know they will be welcomed by a neighbor. When we need an egg or batteries on Christmas morning, we can always count on our next door neighbor. I know I am', not the only one in Belveron East who has these experiences on a regular basis. There are many wide and close groups of friends throughout Belveron East. As such, we have a special community spirit and bond that not only sustains us but draws others to our neighborhood who want to experience the same sense of community. Unfortunately the approval of 22 Mercury has caused a tear among neighbors in that area. Perhaps if more time is given to re-work the proposed new home these neighbors can find more compromises, mend their differences, and create a win-win for all concerned. This may also serve as an example to other neighbors who want to improve their home or are worried about construction next to them. While opinions on this matter vary among Belveron East neighbors as they should I think most of us agree that we would like to see this situation work out for the best of all. We ask for your thoughtful consideration on this matter. Best, Karen Halsey 14 Juno Road Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED 13 October 2009 LATE MAIL # PY-1 OCT 14 2009 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Council Members: We are writing to you with our concerns about the proposed building at 22 Mercury in Belveron East. After saying no on three occasions, the Design Review Board was finally hounded into accepting the design for this property on the fourth attempt. Now, all four adjacent neighbors are appealing. Among the reasons people move to Belveron include the fact that it is a flat neighborhood with private back yards. There is a sense of community here that has existed for decades. Our neighborhood association puts on block parties, neighborhood-wide garage sales, and other events. Ex-neighbors come to these events and say how much they miss this friendly neighborhood with a marvelous sense of community. To approve a huge house remodel like this (the second story alone is larger than the original houses built here) is to go against all surrounding people. This destroys our community here. Please go to the neighboring properties and see why they are fighting this. Consider what you would do if someone's windows peered down on you while you are in your back yard trying to get a little privacy. Think about what approval of this over-sized building would set as a precedent for our neighborhood. We do not oppose a tasteful, appropriate and privacy respecting second story in general; but on 22 Mercury it doesn't work. There are many neighborhoods in Marin and beyond that have houses that are just a few feet apart, with views from the second story windows that peer into the yards and windows of others. We do not want this here. Please respect the needs and wishes of our neighbors, and the character and community of our neighborhood, by not allowing this type of house to be built here. Thank you, Marti Andrews Jay Andrews (11 Apollo Rd.) ,brews September 28, 2009 To: Tiburon City Council Tiburon, CA Dear Council Members, LATE MAIL # RECEIVED OCT 14 2009 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON We, residents of Belveron East in Tiburon, are writing this as a plea for you to reconsider the approval regarding the remodel at 22 Mercury. Our concerns are: Most of the small lots in our neighborhood do not allow a second story without compromising the privacy or views of the surrounding neighbors. These compromises should be considered on a lot-by-lot basis in order to preserve the rights of the existing homeowners. When every adjoining lot owner is in direct opposition to a project, this is not a compromise. What this is, is the persistence of a given homeowner to push a project through, despite the feelings of violation they are creating around them. The landscape plan seems like an effort to mask a problem rather than fix it. The ambitious plan to screen the house only adds to the crowded feeling, blocks sunlight, and would require an ongoing positive relationship with the neighbors in order for it to be successfully maintained. Considering the resentment going into the project, the idea that this will be a feasible solution is unlikely. The small lots and appropriately modest houses in Belveron East have successfully housed generations of Tiburon residents. The single story houses and the flat open streets are ideal for young families, the elderly, and those who just want a normal sized house. We would like to see the unique character of our neighborhood kept for future generations. P'a( APA4P Signature .~)1 ~-~:eJllxs Name -,ACA Tiburon, CA 94920 - l]- Address , n IV? - Signature Name ` ► Tiburon, CA 94920 -Address Signature Name IL - e"( c" Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name 3/ K- C- ~z Ll Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name ML->,ccut-U AV, Tiburon CA 94920 ess i Sig ature Name C Tiburon, CA 94920 Address a Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address 6, 12A24 2 Signature Name - 2:6 )w if A Address Signature Name Prwc Tiburon, CA 94920 Address y. Signature Name Address Signature I; Tiburon, CA 94920 ANNA 4~~~ ! C ~ Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Address Tiburon, CA 94920 Signs ' re Name tJ arc ~r-v Tiburon, CA 94920 Address 3 ih`V" `(mil AavvrA Signature SnGtr Dn S-,, ei d Name y,q rylovcj+' A\~ . Tiburon, CA 94920 Add res S ~6n*abure Name / Anle- Tiburon, CA 94920 Address / Signature Nam !V', • Tiburon, CA 94920 Ad ess lc- Sig tyre Name Ly RA/ Tiburon, CA 94920 -Me~ Address ignature Name -4nP,Q.CIAEA HIJe Tiburon, CA 94920 Address G VI C F c-~' Signature Name Uv" Address Tiburon, CA 94920 Signature Name Ile 'Acc Tiburon, A 94920 Address Signature Name Z~- Tiburon f , CA 94920 A res 44-A SSignatur6' \J Name k i 1 Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name ) ~4- ~k 1-::~ ~v Tiburon CA 94920 Address rl L Signature Name • Tiburon, CA 94920 Address j A Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address 6*0 Si nature ,~O J1,4 Name Address Name MILK,-, f+UAI~> Signature !L~z A-J Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Swat -L/re Name E r c., Address Signatu Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon, CA 94920 tv Name CA 2 ~ Tiburon, CA 94920 Address 9 -IN Signatu e Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address FU Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 J# ci Address 6 i r + -41 cl, Si9na ure Name (5-~ 11)e Address Signature Tiburon, CA 94920 , ! 1 , +P,rs+ rr. ~r 1/ l ~ J 1 7 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Sign ure atr4.D6f L . f ,l/G'ff& Name Tiburon CA 94920 Address ~L~.~- I`~ ,11I11~ ~'7 v1 i~1 1 1 lam( Yl Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address §r6atu 7 Name ,'26 Tiburon, CA 94920 Address R Signatu a Name Tiburon CA 94920 d d ress z O 1--_. Q o Signature Name (2(- f Tiburon CA 94920 Address Signature Name 21 8A r Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address 8 Signature Atv"o ftr'1 H-Cir AhAj"~Sr L S~Oti-►~S 04 ft4►~C.IPw I i 3 xicvc- tom ce%, w4 ur'Tn-h-s 1" 1~.~'~..A,~ ~ ~lvWr Si Je zF' ~~1~ 4H►3.~r~ At~1fl- c-'~ . 1OA - Name A -A~~ ~ Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name 1,20 llo P--c~ , Tiburon, CA 94920 Address ysinature Name J Z& 0 14 IlCr a Tiburon, CA 94920 Ad d ress Signature Name I` \ too Tiburon, CA 94920 - 3 Address 5 1~ ~~iP ~a t^i S Si 66 fdre Name ~ .1~'faa'/f AMdazz ASignature Name / / zQ2 Q/14 Tiburon, CA 94920 Ad es v IT Signature Name -r7 9-100Z-L.6 &Ot, Tiburon, CA 94920 d ess ~Pr'( ~J Ih1 Signature Name N X, , Tiburon, CA 94920 Addres SIMbn dAcKtiVL Signature 6 APO LLO rz6 ~ hkQ tcJlQa ,ru~~~l~ly'S~2,~d1 Name 2 sia+~ hQVnQS Address Tiburon, CA 94920 gc~ke~a9 rec w/ i de kr R. Si at a Name OF lc-+Jc - bL) - Ov, w a rb p . & svLcct ~o S~ P p~ (1 Address Address /0 Tiburon, CA 94920 ej~~24 Signature Name ~ 3~ I~GCLa Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature Name f)6k V-~ id' Tiburon, CA ~4~2• Address Signat lae' rrrlo IAX~ L-6 u2 h ct e Tiburon, CA 94920 Address /Vo 17- fu C G~ ignature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address ignature Name vq APZ) ?A - - Address Signature / ~ j2~~ 0 Address Name f- c1vGS~'1}' Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon, CA 94920 Il 0. #"E ~ - ~~V' A Signature 61 Name 114t svn)IO RO Address '0.4 nA /01 n fh6,Kp&X4 -vi A Signature l 2. .13 uivo RP . Tiburon, CA 94920 c.44p%Qc6s at°r3lEu~KIS Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address Signature e-=-c7 (k a .r- Name 21-1 1~~ Tiburon, CA 94920 Address ~A\J 4 7- Signature Name Tiburon, CA 94920 - q L", Addres , 1 , 4-h ~ Il~ Signature Name "l kh" A Tiburon, CA 94920 Address N\vj~k N4 Signature Name I0 Efo I 1° Tiburon, CA 94920 Address J 1 n Name Address ` i1 Tiburon, CA 94920 1 wjtl A'i1E;c-f%j Signature Name q dI n L CY Tiburon, CA 94920 AririrPc,c ' Sigfibture J41 zl-~/4=2, 7:,- T--Q Name - ' / 2 Address t Signature Address Signature Address Signature Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Address Tiburon, CA 94920 Signature Name plbo~' Lr~ Address 2 "i~'j 0 4D Signature Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Address 42~; ? MAW'4 F4wr M e..ye A.. Si fKature Name ftv le Address Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 Name Tiburon, CA 94920 - -,n,- Dan Watrous LATE MAIL H I From: Mark Vasquez [markvasquez@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:01 PM To: Dan Watrous - tom L= Cc: jldibble@yahoo.com 't_ . ff~ Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue OCT 2 0 009~ We live at 36 Mercury Avenue and wanted to express our support for the Dibble project. DPJP,'Si0N It is consistent with the evolving neighborhood, tasteful, and within the building guidelines as established by the Town of Tiburon. Sincerely, Mark Vasquez 10/20/2009 rage 1 oI i LATE MAIL # PY- i Dan atrous Front: Sent: To: SDibble@fbm.com Friday, October 16, 2009 4:59 PM Mayor, Alice Fredericks; Vice Mayor, Miles Berger; Councilmember Richard Collins; Councilmember Tom Gram; Councilmember Jeff Slavitz Cc: Peggy Curran; Dan watrous; jidibble@yahoo.com Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue Dear Members of the Town Council: ^ O C T 1 9 2009 r My wife and I are the homeowners of 22 Mercury Avenue in Belveron. As you may know, the Design Review Board's August 20, 2009 approval of the plans for our new home is the subject of an appeal that is on the calendar for your meeting on Wednesday night. Jennifer and I would like to invite you to our house so that you can see the house and the orientation of our property to that of our neighbors. We will also be happy to answer any questions that you may have about the history of the project, the plans that were approved by the DRB in August or the marry letters of support we have received from our Belveron neighbors. We will be home this weekend and on Monday and Tuesday of next week as well. Please feel free to call us at 789-1913 to set up a time to visit or to just stop by and knock on the door if you are in the neighborhood. Thanks and best regards. - Sam Samuel C. Dibble, CFA Attorney at Law RUSSBUIIIDING 235 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO / CA 94104 415.954.4400 D 415.954.4961 415.954.4480 fi I 6(e( Q~/o lO-iY-o 5 10/19/2009 Dan Watrous From: Bill Melbostad [bmelbo@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 1:59 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: sabods@pacbell.net; Frances Barbour Hayden Subject: Parcel #034-262-31 Mr. Dan Watrous Planning Manager Tiburon Planning Division Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous and Colleagues, LATE MAIL,41- PY--l G P L OCT 1 9 2009 P We are writing with great concern about the Dibble's proposed remodel at 22 Mercury Avenue in Belveron East, parcel #034-262-31. We understand this message officially comes to you past the comment period, however, we just recently have returned to the USA and felt it was important to share our opinion with you. I have owned my home at 27 Mercury since 1993. I have seen and supported the modest second story remodels over that time period here in Belveron East. My wife and I do not support the Dibble's project since it is out of character for our neighborhood and too large for the lot. We do support the opinion of my neighbors that filed the appeal, the O'Neils, Lettriches, Mcleods & Borises, that this proposed remodel not only is inappropriate for the size of the lot and the character of the Neighborhood, it also reduces privacy, sunlight and view corridors for the surrounding neighbors, and thus diminishes their quality of life that they have always enjoyed in Belveron East. We also believe that approval of this project threatens the quality of life for everyone in Belveron East going forward. If this type of monster house becomes acceptable, the original feel & charm of the community that originally attracted us to Belveron East might be lost forever. Sincerely, Bill Melbostad & Frances Barbour 27 Mercury Avenue, Tiburon, CA H: 435-6862 Page 1 of i Dan Watrous From: John McCulloch jjmcculloch a@arausa.comj Sent: Monday, October 19, 200911:47 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 22 Mercury Appeal - Attn Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Council, LATE MAIL# t O C T 1 9 2009 'Avislotl This serves to reiterate our support for .the proposed project at 22 Mercury Avenue. Our family has lived in Belveron East for approximately 7 years. Prior to purchasing our current home (13 Mercury), we were renters at 14 Apollo Load. We support the proposed project for a number of reasons, in no particular order: • This project has undergone multiple design changes and a great deal of scrutiny. It is our understanding that the applicant and their awchitects have pro-actively sought input and endeavored to address as many of their neighbors concerns as practical. • The Design Review Board (DRB), in granting the approval, gave careful consideration to the project before reaching its decision and we trust its informed judgment. • The project meets code and requires no variances. • No fewer than a dozen two-story homes already exist within our neighborhood. • We currently live next door to a two-story home (11 Mercury) and have suffered no ill-affects from said proximity. While we lived at 14 Apollo Road we also lived directly next door to a two- story home, oga+n without experiencing any negative impact. • The original housing stock in the neighborhood is generally in a state of decay and is approaching functional obsolescence. We support any investment that enhances the neighborhood and permits homeowners to make necessary improvements to meet their particular needs. • Belveron East is very popular with young' families and in some cases "going up" is the only practical way to accommodate the needs of growing households. • Recent projects such as 29 Mercury, 22 Apollo and 20 Juno are evidence of the fact that the neighborhood is receptive to design elements that deviate from the standard single level ranch. • Property values in Belveron East could be adversely affected if -the neighborhood becomes known as an area in which projects that meet code and require no variances are denied. Lastly, I would venture that none of the homeowners who are opposed to the project (due to the two-story nature of the project) would be willing to place a deed restriction on their own parcel which would prohibit them or subsequent owners from building a two-story home. Thank you for consideration. Regards, John & Ashley McCulloch 13 Mercury Avenue Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 789-1798 10/19/2009