Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2011-01-19TOWN Or TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon. Boulevard. January 19, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. Closed Session - 6:15p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION - (6:15 p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Case No. TIB0900003 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Menzel v. Town of Tiburon CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Fraser, Mayor Slavitz CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of January 5, 2011 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Amendments to Building Code - Adopt ordinance amending Title IV, Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Director of Community Development Anderson) 3. Town Monthly Investment Summary - Accept December 2010 report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) ACTION ITEM 1. Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (BID) - Consider adoption of resolution to increase assessment to lodging establishments within the Tiburon BID and set public hearing date (Town Attorney Danforth) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2312 Spanish Trail - Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for construction of a new, detached, two-family dwelling with a detached two-family dwelling exception and variance for reduced front yard setback - (Planning Manager Watrous) Assessor Parcel No. 059-201-23 Owners; William and Joy Norris Applicant: Roger Hartley Appellants: Jerome Bernal, Shelley Brown, Celia and Ann DeMartini, Robert Harrison, Wallace Quinn, Dennis and Terry Schwakopf, Sue Zimmerman 2. Draft Housing Element - Introduction and review of preliminary draft Housing Element of the Tiburon General Plan (Director of Community Development Anderson) 3. Ned's Way Recreation Facility -Review site plan and architectural drawings for the Ned's Way Joint Recreation Project at 600 Ned's Way, AP No. 058-151-27; consider adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration - (Director of Community Development Anderson) - PLFASFNOTF• This item has been continued without hearing to the February 16, 2011 meeting TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest -January 7, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest -January 14, 2011 ADJOURNMENT - in memory of Fran Mayberry, Tiburon Town Coimci1,1986 -1990 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. _ CC-1 TOWN COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor SlavitCaled the regu eeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda ary 5, 2011, ' Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. Rnf 1, C A1.1, PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Building Official Lustenberger, Chief of Police Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT, IF ANY Mayor Slavitz said that an item had been brought to his attention for consideration by the Council after the agenda was published. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Council could place this item on the closed session agenda if the determination was made by a two-thirds vote of the Council to add it on an urgency basis. MOTION: To adjourn to closed session at the end of the regular meeting to determine whether to undertake the items on an urgency basis. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of November 17, 2010 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of December 1, 2010 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January 5, 2011 Page 1 3. Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions - Announce pending vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions in 2011 (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 4. Annual Development Fee Report - Adopt annual report on the status of the Town's Development Impact Fees pursuant to the California Government Code (Director of Community Development Anderson) 5. Storm Runoff Impact Fees - Adopt five-year report and findings (resolution) (Director of Community Development Anderson) 6. Housing In-Lieu Impact Fees - Adopt five-year report and findings (resolution) (Director of Community Development Anderson) MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 6, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSTAIN: Fredericks [November 17, 2010 Minutes - Item No. I] ACTION ITEMS 1. Town Council Committee Appointments - Update Council Committee Appointments list to reflect revisions or new committee assignments in 2011 (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Town Clerk Crane Iacopi said that that it was customary for the Council to review its appointments list after reorganization in December, and make revisions. Council made the following changes: • Vice Mayor Fraser replaced Mayor Slavitz on the 2011-12 ad hoc Budget Committee; • The ad hoc committee, Del Mar Litigation, was terminated and a new committee called "Del Mar Claims" was formed, with the same membership (Councilmembers Collins and O'Donnell); • Mayor Slavitz was appointed to replace Emmett O'Donnell on the Community Development Block Grant Program Priority-Setting Committee at the County of Marin. Town Clerk Crane Iacopi said that a new list would be created and circulated in the Town Council Digest reflecting these changes. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendments to Building Code - Consider amendments to Title IV, Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code - First Reading of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January 5, 2011 Page 2 Building Official Lustenberger and Community Development Anderson gave the report. The Building Official said that from time to time the State of California adopts updated construction codes and allows local governments a 180-day window to adopt those codes with modifications. He said the new state codes went into effect on January 1, 2011 and the Town has until June 30, 2011 to make any local modifications, provided that the state-adopted codes continue to represent minimum requirements. Lustenberger said that local governments are allowed to make modifications to the standardized codes under limited circumstances, and noted that Tiburon and most other municipalities regularly do so. He said the ordinance before the Town Council tonight contains the Town's adoption of the construction codes, with modifications for local conditions, and incorporates by reference and ratifies the two local Fire Districts' modifications to the Fire Code. Lustenberger described two significant changes to the construction codes adopted by the State of California during the past three-year adoption cycle: 1) the introduction of the 2010 California Residential Code (CRC); and 2) the 2010 Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC or "CalGreen"). Lustenberger said the CRC applies to the construction or alteration of one- and two-family dwellings and associated accessory structures, and contains standards and requirements more closely tailored to residential construction. He said there were numerous organizational changes, section changes, and appendix changes associated with this new code. Lustenberger also said that because the new code applies to the vast majority of construction projects within the Town, it would be carefully evaluated over the coming months by Town staff and, if warranted, amendments for local modifications would be recommended to the Town Council for consideration. Of particular concern, he said, were the structural provisions, which deviate substantially from those found in previous codes. The Building Official said that "CalGreen" is the nation's first state-wide green building code and applies to newly-constructed residential and commercial buildings and, by adoption of the proposed ordinance, additions to existing dwelling units that constitute at least 500 hundred square feet of conditioned floor area, additions to existing nonresidential buildings that equal or exceed 3,000 square feet, and all Town-sponsored projects. At this point in time, Lustenberger said Town staff recommended adoption of "CalGreen" in its basic form, without the more rigorous Tier 1 or Tier 2 green provisions that are optional for adoption under the state code. Over the next several months, he said that Town staff would evaluate these options, as well as the locally-created Green BERST option being adopted by a few cities in Marin, and would return with recommendations for which program seems best suited to the Town's goals and processes. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January S, 2011 Page 3 Lustenberger said that the Town's current Green Regulations, set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, would be repealed following adoption of "CalGreen" because they are in conflict with the new state code. In response to a question from Council, the Building Official said that the Town cannot have standards that were less restrictive than the state code, and that to apply more restrictive standards would require the making of certain findings. Mayor Slavitz asked if a red-lined version could be made available in order for the Council to compare the new ordinance with the older version. Lustenberger responded that the incorporation of the new state code represented primarily numerical and renumbering changes to the Town's Code, with very little substantive change to the text. Vice Mayor Fraser said that the process of reviewing the new Zoning Ordinance while he served on the Planning Commission had proved to be very helpful and gave the Commission a chance to "vet" the changes. The Building Official said that unlike the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance, the Town, by default, had to start enforcing the new state code on January 1, 2011. He said that it was customary for municipalities to simply incorporate the state building codes into their existing codes. Councilmember Fredericks said that it would be useful to see any changes [in the Town Code] that did not conform to the state code. Councilmember O'Donnell said the biggest change was the deletion of the green point rating system. Director of Community Development Anderson said that he would be happy to go through the new ordinance, page by page, and review the changes. He proceeded to do so, and covered all changes to section re-numbering and the like, with one or two more substantive changes that were discussed by the Council at some length. Councilmember O'Donnell asked about Section 13-2 (f) and asked what constituted a "repair" of a pool, spa, etc. that would trigger the requirement for a permit. For instance, he asked whether routine maintenance or replacement of a part would require a permit. Building Official Lustenberger said that the new codes were adopted to protect children from being sucked into or entrapped in pools or spa equipment. He said the state law also complied with federal law with regard to "anti-entrapment" or "anti-vortex" safety standards. However, Lustenberger said that replacement of a pool or spa pump, for instance, would not trigger the need for a pen-nit. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January S, 2011 Page 4 Lustenberger proposed the addition of language to this section to help clarify that "repairs other than those of routine maintenance" would be subject to the permitting process. Council concurred with this recommendation. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether this language should be document-wide to apply to the sections pertaining to plumbing and electrical work. Lustenberger indicated that all similar sections would be changed in the document. During the discussion of the plumbing code section, the Building Official noted that commercial buildings were not subject to regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Community Development which limit plastic waste piping in residential occupancies to two stories. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether there could be instances of residential buildings approved in Tiburon that would be higher than two stories. Director of Community Development Anderson said that examples of structures stepped into a hill would probably not meet the definition of a three-story structure nor would they meet the height limitations of the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines. In the discussion of the "Cal Green" provisions, Director Anderson said that while the state code would apply only to new buildings, the Town had carried over its provisions to apply to residential additions of 500 square feet and to commercial additions of 3,000 square feet or more. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether Town-owned buildings would be exempt. Director Anderson said that the Town could not exempt its own buildings from the state code but that it could set higher standards than those required by the state. Councilmember O'Donnell asked where the adjustment factor for large homes came from in Exhibit A of the Supplemental Staff Report. Building Official Lustenberger said the sources of these standards were Build it Green and Marin BERST. Director Anderson said that the Town's Green program set higher energy efficiency standards for larger homes. He noted that staff proposed to leave theses standards in the new ordinance, and make the necessary findings to support them. Councilmember O'Donnell said that it would be useful to know whether the Town was in `lock step' with other cities in this area. Lustenberger said that the Town was in the "middle range" of cities in the region. Director Anderson noted that several Marin cities had adopted the BERST standards before CalGreen went into effect and that some had grafted a hastily revised BERST program onto CalGreen, but that the timing of CalGreen's roll-out had at least temporarily fractured the formerly unified approach that was being taken by Marin cities. _ DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January 5, 2011 Page 5 Vice Mayor Fraser commented that it would be helpful for contractors to have standardized criteria. The Vice Mayor also asked staff to double-check with the other cities, especially in Southern Marin, and report back to Council, on what criteria was being used. Councilmember O'Donnell agreed that this information would be useful to have prior to adoption of the ordinance. Building Official Lustenberger noted that one reason for the California Green Code was to create uniformity in state-wide standards. He said that the Town of Tiburon was probably less stringent than other communities, in some areas. The Building Official went on to say that some standards in the new code were more difficult to assess, and more subjective in nature. He said it would be useful to have more practice and experience in the field in order to assess them; for now, Lustenberger said the Town was required to enforce the state code as it is written. Director Anderson said that there were only two areas in which the Town was more restrictive: 1) applying the green standards to additions over 500 square feet, as well as to new buildings; and 2) requiring enhanced energy efficiency to non-residential buildings over 3,000 square feet. Councilmember O'Donnell and Vice Mayor Fraser said they would like to know if other communities were taking a similar approach. Director Anderson said that Staff would provide the Council with answers to this and the other questions. Councilmember O'Donnell also asked about the process to ensure that landscaping plans, once approved by the Town, were enforced. Director Anderson said that landscape plans were part of Zoning or Design Review Board approval process, rather than a Building Department function. He said that Town staff did go out and inspect and sign off on the plans on the day the project receives its final [building] permit. He said it was no longer the norm to require a bond or anything of that nature. However, Anderson said that once the landscape plans had been signed off as final, there was nothing in the code to require owners to "keep up" the landscaping, or for new owners to replace it. O'Donnell asked how differences between the landscaping requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and local fire districts were resolved. Anderson said that MMWD standards were primarily for water efficiency, and that an owner would not have any trouble meeting MMWD standards if they complied with the Fire Codes. He noted that the Town had "come a long way" in coordinating this process and providing a logical process for applicants. Mayor Slavitz opened the hearing to the public. Chuck Orr, Tiburon Hill Estates, asked about the purpose of banning the use of PVC in buildings over two stories. Building Official Lustenberger said it was an issue of fire safety in buildings with PVC piping that could act as a chimney stack and also off-gas noxious fumes in_a fire. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January 5, 2011 Page 6 Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending provisions of Title IV, Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Building Regulations)." MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance, with amended language in Section 13-2 and as set forth in the staff report. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Fraser Roll Call Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz NAPES: None TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Town Manager Curran said that February 8 had been selected as the date of the Town Council/Staff retreat. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - December 3, 2010 • Town Council Weekly Digest - December 10, 2010 • Town Council Weekly Digest - December 17, 2010 ADJOURNMENT - to closed session, at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Slavitz adjourned the regular meeting in memory of Allan Littman, Tiburon Town Council, 1972-1976, Belvedere-Tiburon Library founding member and supporter, and a person with a great spirit of community. JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January S, 2011 Page 7 CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Council voted unanimously to add an item to the agenda, finding that it had come to the Town's attention after the Town had published the agenda and that it could not reasonably wait until the next regularly-scheduled Council meeting. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Case No. TIB0900003 ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT, IF ANY No action was taken in closed session. ADJOURNMENT - to next regular meeting scheduled for January 19, 2011 DRAFT Town Council Minutes #01 -2011 January S, 2011 Page 8 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Mayor & Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Town Council Meeting January 19, 2011 Agenda Item: Subj ect: Amend Title IV, Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to Adopt by Reference and with Modifications the Latest State-Authorized Construction Codes; File MCA 2010-03 (Ordinance-Second Reading and Adoption) Reviewed by: BACKGROUND The Town Council held first reading of this ordinance at its meeting on January 5, 2011, after directing several modifications, and waived all further readings. The item now comes to the Town Council for adoption. ANALYSIS The ordinance highlights the new changes directed by the Town Council at the January 5th meeting in strike-through and double-underline format (i.e., those changes that were not already set forth in the staff report or supplemental staff report). The highlighted changes are found in Section 13-2 on page 2 of the draft ordinance and clarify that routine maintenance-related repairs do not generally require certain types of permits. The Council also requested information as to how other cities in Marin County are addressing enhancements to CALGreen. A summary is attached as Exhibit 1. PROCEDURE This is a consent calendar item. The Council's motion to adopt this item on the consent calendar will constitute a motion to confirm the waiver of second reading from the previous meeting and adopt the ordinance. Each Councilmember's vote on the motion to approve this item on the consent calendar will constitute the equivalent of a roll call vote and will be recorded within the ordinance. Should any Councilmember choose to vote differently on this item than other items on the consent calendar, then the vote on this item should be taken separately from other items appearing on the Consent Calendar such that individual votes may be properly recorded. Should the Council wish to discuss the item, it must be removed from the Consent Calendar and voted upon separately. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council approve final adoption of Ordinance No. 523 N. S., a draft of which is attached as Exhibit 2, as part of the Consent Calendar. EXHIBITS 1. Summary of CALGreen enhancements by other Marin County cities. 2. Draft Ordinance No. 523 N. S. Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community DeveloPmenC Fred Lustenberger, Building Official S: I MministrationITown CouncihStaff Reports1201 ] Uan 19 draftslbuilding code adoption report.doc ca CALGREEN ENHANCEMENT COMPARISON WITH OTHER MARIN CITIES Agency A~ M roach to CALGreen Enhanced Energy Efficiency Adopted Belvedere Basic CALGreen No; will consider BERST in future Corte Madera Basic CALGreen No. Fairfax Basic CALGreen No response as of report date Larkspur CALGreen with Tier 1 Yes, as contained in Tier 1 Mill Valley Basic CALGreen Yes, using revised Energy Table Novato No decision yet Considering BERST Ross Basic CALGreen No, will consider BERST in future San Anselmo CALGReen with BERST Yes; as contained in BERST San Rafael CALGreen with BERST Yes, as contained in BERST Sausalito No decision yet Unknown direction at this time County of Marin CALGreen with BERST Yes, as contained in BERST "NO. ORDINANCE NO. 523 N. S. (DRAFT) AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV, CHAPTER 13 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (BUILDING REGULATIONS) The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town Council held a public hearing on January 5, 2011, and has heard and considered any and all public testimony on this matter. B. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. C. The Town Council finds that the amendments made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. D. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan. E. The Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is ministerially exempt from the requirements of CEQA and is also exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. Amendments. Tiburon Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) is hereby amended as follows: A. Article I (In General) of Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 13-1 Building Inspection Division and Building Official position established. (a) There is established a building inspection division of the town pursuant to section 103 of the California Building Code as adopted in Article II of this chapter. (b) The position of building official is hereby established and the Building Official shall act as the administrative head of the building division of the town. EXHIBIT NO. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 1 13-2 Permits required. (a) Building permits. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, fePai , move, improve, remeve, eerr-ec-t of demolish, or perform non-maintenance related repairs to any building or structure in the town, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a separate building permit for each such building or structure, as required by the Technical Codes adopted in Article II of this chapter, from the Building Inspection Division. (b) Plumbing permits. No person shall do or cause or permit to be done any plumbing or sanitary drainage work without first obtaining a permit for such work, as required by the Technical Codes adopted in Article II of this chapter, from the building inspection division. (c) Heating and comfort cooling permits. No person shall install, alter, construct or perform non-maintenance related repairs to any heating, ventilating, comfort cooling or refrigeration equipment without first obtaining a permit for such work, as required by the Technical Codes adopted in Article II of this chapter, from the Building Inspection Division. (d) Electrical permits. No person shall do any wiring or install any fixed electrical equipment without first obtaining a permit for such work, as required by the Technical Codes adopted in Article II of this chapter,' from the building inspection division. (e) Excavation and grading permits. Except as exempted in Appendix J, Section 103.2 of the California Building Code adopted in Article II of this chapter, no person shall do any excavating or grading without first obtaining a grading permit from the building inspection division. (f) Swimming pools and similar. No person shall install, alter, or perform non- maintenance related repairs to any swimming pool, hot tub or spa without first obtaining a permit for such work, as required by the Technical Codes adopted in Article II of this chapter, from the building inspection division. (g) The building official may-impose supplemental permit conditions that are in his reasonable discretion necessary to promote the public health, safety or welfare. 13-3 Fees. (a) Before any permit required by this chapter is issued, the applicant shall pay to the building inspection division the prescribed fee as established by the current Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council. If any work that requires a permit is commenced without a permit having first been obtained, the fee for the required permit shall be as set forth in the current Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and the penalty shall be as set forth in the current Schedule of Fines adopted by resolution of the town council. (b) Where it is found that work is being done under this chapter without a permit and that such work would, under the terms of this chapter, require a permit, Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 2 there shall be charged an investigation fee in the amount established in the current Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council. The investigation fee shall be in addition to all other fees and fines/penalties set forth in subsection (a).The fees and penalties shall be paid before any application for permit shall be considered. (c) Where more than one reinspection of any item requiring inspection has to be made because work has not been ready or defects have not been corrected, a fee, as established in the current Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Town Council, will be charged for each additional reinspection, and shall be paid before final approval of the work. (d) No permit for new work on a property shall be issued until all outstanding fines, fees, and/or penalties have been paid and all inspections completed on work performed under previously-issued permits that have not been finaled and have expired by limitation. B. Article II (Technical Codes) of Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 13-4 Adoption by reference of technical codes. For the purpose of establishing proper regulations for building construction, for the installation of plumbing, gas appliances and electrical systems, and for the storage and handling of flammable liquids, the codes or portions thereof set forth in this article are adopted and are made a part of this chapter by reference without further publication or posting thereof, and not less than one certified copy, along with the deletions and exceptions therefrom -and additions and amendments thereto, shall be kept on file for use and examination by the public in the office of the town clerk. 13-4.1 Building Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2010 California Building Code, (based on the International Building Code, 2009 Edition), Volume 1 and Volume 2, including the following appendices: Appendix Chapter 1, and Appendices F, H, I and J as published by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, hereinafter referred to as the "California Building Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.1.1 of this chapter. 13-4.1.1 Amendments made to the 2010 California Building Code. The California Building Code is amended to read as follows: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective 442011 Page 3 (a) Section 1.8.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 1.8.5.1 General. Subject to the provisions of law, including Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.50 et. seq., officers and agents of the building official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code and the rules and regulations promulgated by the department of housing and community development. For limitations and additional information regarding enforcement, see the following: (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) (b) Section 1.8.8.1 is amended by adding a sentence to the end that reads as follows: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the local appeals board or housing appeals board. (c) Chapter 1, Division II is modified as follows: (1) Section 104.6 is amended to add the following phrase to the end of the last sentence: including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California." (2) Section 105.2 is amended to delete subsections 2, 4, 5, 6, and 12, and to revise subsections 1 and 7 as follows: 1. Detached accessory structures used as playhouses or play structures providing the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet, the structure does not exceed twelve feet in height as defined by Article X, Section 16-100 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, and the structure contains no plumbing, electrical or heating appliances. 7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, counter tops and similar finish work, except that repaving and/or restriping of parking lots shall require a permit. (3) Section 105.5. is amended to read as follows: 1. All permits issued by the Building Official shall expire by limitation and become null and void eighteen months from the date the permit is issued, except as follows: - Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 4 a. Where the project is unusually large or complex, a twenty- four month permit may be issued in the reasonable discretion of the Building Official at the time of initial application; or b. Where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and made substantial progress but is unable to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, one extension of up to six months may be granted, without payment of additional fees or penalties. In determining whether due diligence has been exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work began promptly after permit issuance, whether work was conducted on a regular basis and any other relevant facts. Decisions of the Building Official made pursuant to this paragraph may be appealed to the local appeals board. 2. Once the initial permit and/or approved six month extension has expired, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated. Reactivation shall be allowed only if there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications and a Reactivation Charge equal to the full original fee is paid. A Reactivation Charge, for purposes of this section, is both a fee to recover the cost of providing additional building inspection division services and a penalty for failure to complete the project within the allotted time. A permit reactivated under this subsection shall be valid for six months from the date of initial expiration. 3. If the project is not completed within the six month extension allowed under subsection (2) above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued on the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated. Reactivation of the permit for a second six month period shall be allowed only if there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications and a Reactivation Charge equal to three times the full original fee is paid. The Building Official may, in his sole discretion, reduce the penalty based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. A permit reactivated under this subsection shall be valid for an additional six months from the date of initial expiration. 4. If the project is not completed within the six month extension allowed under subsection (3) above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the local appeals board for resolution. The local appeals board may reactivate the permit upon submission and acceptance of a completion schedule for the project and payment of five times the full original fee as a Reactivation Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 5 Charge, and provided that there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications. The local appeals board may, in its sole discretion, reduce the penalty based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. 5. If the project is not completed within the six month extension allowed under subsection (4) above, or pursuant to this subsection (5), a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the local appeals board for resolution. The local appeals board may impose additional requirements, such as the retention of a qualified contractor for owner/builder projects or retention of a qualified construction manager for a contracted project, in order to promote swift completion. The local appeals board may reactivate the permit upon imposition of any such conditions deemed reasonable, and payment of five times the full original fee as a Reactivation Charge, provided that there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications. (5) Section 109.2 is amended to read as follows: 109.2 Schedule of Fees. On buildings, structures, electrical, gas, mechanical and plumbing system alterations requiring a permit, a fee for each permit shall be required as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule as adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (6) Section 109.4 is amended to read as follows: 109.4 Work commencing before permit issuance. Any person who commences any work without a permit on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a penalty as set forth in the Town's Schedule of Fines, established by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (7) Section 113.3 is amended by adding thereto the following sentence: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the board of appeals. (d) Section 501.2 is amended to read as follows: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 6 501.2 Address Numbers. 1. The following standards for address markings shall apply to residential buildings: a. All residential structures shall display a street number in a prominent position so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four inches in height, and one-half inch in width, of a color contrasting to the background and located so they may be clearly seen and read. If a building is not easily visible from the street, then the numbers are to be mounted at the access drive leading to the building. b. At each vehicular access to a multiple family dwelling complex having four or more buildings, there shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation (plot plan) of the complex, which shows the location of the viewer and the building units within the complex. C. In multiple family dwelling complexes, any building having a separate identifying factor other than the street numbet shall be clearly identified in the manner described in subsection a. Each individual unit of residence shall have a unit identifying number, letter, or combination thereof displayed upon the door. d. Maps of the multiple family complex will be furnished to the police and fire departments upon completion of construction. The maps shall include building identification and unit identification. e. Buildings shall be numbered in such a manner and sequence as to meet with the approval of the enforcing authority. f. This section shall not prevent supplementary numbering such as reflective numbers on street curbs or decorative numbering, but this shall be considered supplemental only and shall not satisfy the requirements of this section. 2. The following standards for address markings shall apply to commercial buildings: a. The address number of every commercial building shall be located and displayed so that it shall be easily visible from the street. b. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than six inches in height, one-half inch in width, and of a color contrasting to the background. In addition, any business which affords vehicular access to the rear through any Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective 4-42011 Page 7 driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. C. When required by the building official, approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the fire apparatus road at the back of a property or where rear parking lots or alleys provide an acceptable vehicular access. Number height and width shall comply with Section 501.2. (e) Section 903.2, first sentence, is amended to read as follows: 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section, provided that where applicable code provisions adopted by either the Tiburon Fire Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the latter shall control. (f) Section 1013.1 is amended by adding the following sentence: Guards are also required at waterfront bulkheads, fixed piers and gangways. (g) Section 1505 is amended to read as follows: The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code shall be as specified in California Building Code Chapter 15 with the following conditions: 1. All new buildings and new additions shall have at least a Class A- listed or noncombustible roof covering. 2. Where alterations or repairs to existing roofs involve more than fifty percent of the total area of an existing building within a one year time period, the entire roof shall be retrofitted with at least a Class A- listed or noncombustible roof. 3. Where applicable code provisions adopted by either the Tiburon Fire Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the latter shall control. (h) Appendix J "GRADING" is amended as follows: J 103.3 Grading Permit Fees. Fees shall be as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule established by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council as amended from time to time. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 8 J 110.3 Mud, Loose Dirt, or Debris on Public Street. No person, firm or corporation who has a valid building, demolition or grading permit shall permit any mud, loose dirt or debris to be removed from the job site and deposited on any public street or sidewalk. 13-4.2 Residential Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety, and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2010 California Residential Code (based on the International Residential Code, 2009 edition), including Appendices G, H, and J published by the International Code Council, and as amended by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5, hereinafter referred to as the "California Residential Code," save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13- 4.2.1 of this chapter. 13-4.2.1 Amendments to the 2010 California Residential Code. The 2010 California Residential Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 1.8.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 1.8.5.1 General. Subject to the provisions of law, including Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.50 et. seq., officers and agents of the building official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code and the rules and regulations promulgated by the department of housing and community development. For limitations and additional information regarding enforcement, see the following: (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) (b) Section 1.8.8.1 is amended by adding a sentence to the end that reads as follows: "Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the local appeals board or housing appeals board." (c) Chapter 1, Division II is modified as follows: (1) Section 104.6 is amended to add the following phrase to the end of the last sentence: including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et. seq. of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 9 the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California." (2) Section 105.2 is amended to delete (building) subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10, and to revise subsections 1 and 6 to read as follows: 1. Detached accessory structures used as playhouses or play structures providing the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet, the structure does not exceed twelve feet in height as defined by Article X, Section 16-100 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, and the structure contains no plumbing, electrical or heating appliances. 6. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, counter tops and similar finish work, except that repaving and/or restriping of parking lots shall require a permit. (3) Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows: Section 105.5 Expiration. 1. All permits issued by the Building Official shall expire by limitation and become null and void eighteen months from the date the permit is issued, except as follows: a. Where the project is unusually large or complex, a twenty- four month permit may be issued in the reasonable discretion of the Building Official at the time of initial application; or b. Where the pennittee has proceeded with due diligence and made substantial progress but is unable to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, one extension of up to six months may be granted, without payment of additional fees or penalties. In determining whether due diligence has been exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work began promptly after permit issuance, whether work was conducted on a regular basis and any other relevant facts. Decisions of the Building Official made pursuant to this paragraph may be appealed to the local appeals board. 2. Once the initial permit and/or approved six month extension has expired, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated. Reactivation shall be allowed only if there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications and a Reactivation Charge equal to the full original fee Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 10 is paid. A Reactivation Charge, for purposes of this section, is both a fee to recover the cost of providing additional building inspection division services and a penalty for failure to complete the, project within the allotted time. A permit reactivated under this subsection shall be valid for six months from the date of initial expiration. 3. If the project is not completed within the six month extension allowed under subsection (2) above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued on the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated. Reactivation of the permit for a second six month period shall be allowed only if there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications and a Reactivation Charge equal to three times the full original fee is paid. The Building Official may, in his sole discretion, reduce the penalty based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. A permit reactivated under this subsection shall be valid for an additional six months from the date of initial expiration. 4. If the project is not completed within the six month extension allowed under subsection (3) above, a Stop Work Order shall'be issued and the matter referred to the local appeals board for resolution. The local appeals board may reactivate the permit upon submission and acceptance of a completion schedule for the project and payment of five times the full original fee as a Reactivation Charge, and provided that there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications. The local appeals board may, in its sole discretion, reduce the penalty based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. 5. If the project is not completed within the six month extension allowed under subsection (4) above, or pursuant to this subsection (5), a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the local appeals board for resolution. The local appeals board may impose additional requirements, such as the retention of a qualified contractor for owner/builder projects or retention of a qualified construction manager for a contracted project, in order to promote swift completion. The local appeals board may reactivate the permit upon imposition of any such conditions deemed reasonable, and payment of five times the full original fee as a Reactivation Charge, provided that there have been no changes in the original plans and specifications (d) Section R319.1 is amended to read as follows: R319.1 Address Numbers. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 11 (1) The following standards for address markings shall apply to residential buildings: a. All residential structures shall display a street number in a prominent position so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four inches in height, and one-half inch in width, of a color contrasting to the background and located so they may be clearly seen and read. If a building is not easily visible from the street, then the numbers are to be mounted at the access drive leading to the building. b. At each vehicular access to a multiple family dwelling complex having four or more buildings, there shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation (plot plan) of the complex, which shows the location of the viewer and the building units within the complex. C. In multiple family dwelling complexes, any building having a separate identifying factor other than the street number shall be clearly identified in the manner described in subsedtion a. Each individual unit of residence shall have a unit identifying number, letter, or combination thereof displayed upon the door. d. Maps of the multiple family complex will be furnished to the police and fire departments upon completion of construction. The maps shall include building identification and unit identification. e. Buildings shall be numbered in such a manner and sequence as to meet with the approval of the enforcing authority. f. This section shall not prevent supplementary'numbering such as reflective numbers on street curbs or decorative numbering, but this shall be considered supplemental only and shall not satisfy the requirements of this section. (e) Section 1013.1 is amended by adding the following sentence: "Guards are also required at waterfront bulkheads, fixed piers and gangways." (f) Sections R313.3, first sentence, is amended to read as follows: R313.3 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section, provided that where Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 12 applicable code provisions adopted by either the Tiburon Fire Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the latter shall control. (g) Section R905 is amended to read as follows: The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code shall be as specified in California Residential Code Chapter 9 with the following conditions: 1. All new buildings and new additions shall have at least a Class A- listed or noncombustible roof covering. 2. Where alterations or repairs to existing roofs involve more than fifty percent of the total area of an existing building within a one year time period, the entire roof shall be retrofitted with at least a Class A- listed or noncombustible roof. 3. Where applicable code provisions adopted by either the Tiburon Fire Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the latter shall control. 13-4.3 Plumbing Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2010 California Plumbing Code, (based on the Uniform Plumbing Code, 2009 Edition), including Appendices A, B, D, I, and L published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, and as amended by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, hereinafter referred to as the "California Plumbing Code", savo and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.3.1 of this chapter. 13-4.3.1 Amendments made to the 2010 California Plumbing Code. The 2010 California Plumbing Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 1.8.5.1 is amended to modify the first sentence to read as follows: Section 1.8.5.1 General. Subject to the provisions of law, including Section 1822.50 et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, officers and agents of the building official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code. - (The remainder of this section is unchanged) Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 13 (b) Section 1.8.8.1 is amended by adding the following sentence: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the local appeals board or housing appeals board. (c) Section 203.0 is amended to read as follows: The definition of "AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION" is amended to read as follows: AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall mean the building official or his duly authorized representative. (d) Section 207.0 is amended as follows: The definition of "ENFORCING AGENCY" is amended to read as follows: ' ENFORCING AGENCY The enforcing agency shall be the Building Division of the Community Development Department of the Town of Tiburon. (e) Chapter 1, Division II is amended as follows: (1) Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: These regulations 'shall be known as the California Plumbing Code, may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this code". (2) Section 103.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 103.2.1 Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall apply to the Authority Having Jurisdiction for that purpose. Every such application shall: (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) (3) Section 103.4.1 is amended to read as follows: 103.4.1 Permit Fees. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the time of issuance therefore, pay a fee, which fee shall be as set forth in the Building Division Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 14 Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (4) Section 103.4.2 is deleted. (5) Section 103.5.6 is amended to replace the fourth paragraph with the following: To obtain reinspection, the applicant shall first pay the reinspection fee in accordance with the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (6) Table 1-1 is deleted. (f) Section 701.1.2 is amended to read as follows: ABS and PVC DWV piping installations shall be limited to residential construction not more than two stories in height. 13-4.4 Electrical Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the "2010 California Electrical Code" (based on the National Electrical Code, 2008 Edition) as published by the National Fire Protection Association, and as amended by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 3. 13-4.4.1 Amendments made to the 2010 California Electrical Code. The California Electrical Code is amended or modified as follows: (a) Section 89.108.4.2 is amended to read as follows: 89.108.4.2 Fees. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the time of issuance thereof, pay a fee, which shall be as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (b) Section 89.108.5.1 is amended to modify the first sentence to read as follows: Section 89.108.5.1 General. Subject to other provisions of law, including Section 1822.50 et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 15 California, officers and agents of the Building Official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code. (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) (c) Section 89.108.8.1 is amended by adding the following sentence: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the Town Council from appointing the Town Council as the local appeals board or housing appeals board. (d) Article 100 is amended to read as follows: The definition of "Authority Having Jurisdiction" is amended to read as follows: Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)-The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall mean the Building Official or his or her duly authorized representative. (e) Section 210.12 (B) is amended by adding the following sentence: The provisions of this section shall apply to existing dwelling units when electrical service panels or sub-panels are replaced or upgraded. 13-4.5 Fire Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2010 California Fire Code, as adopted and modified by the current Tiburon Fire Protection District and Southern Marin Fire Protection District ordinances, which Code and ordinances are hereby referred to, ratified, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. Copies of said ordinances are on file and available for public inspection in the office of the town clerk. 13-4.6. Housing Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials, hereinafter referred to as the "Uniform Housing Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter changed or modified by Section 13-4.6.1 of this chapter. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 16 13-4.6.1 Amendments made to the 1997 Uniform Housing Code. The Uniform Housing Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 103 is amended to revise the second sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows: Such occupancies in existing buildings may be continued as provided by the California Existing Building Code, as contained in Title 24, Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations, except such structures as are found to be substandard as defined by this code. (b) Section 104.1 is amended to read as follows: Section 104.1 Additions, Alterations or Repairs. All buildings or structures that are required to be repaired under the provisions of this code shall be subject to the provisions of the California Existing Building Code, as contained in Title 24, Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations. (c) Section 201.1 is amended to revise the first paragraph to read as follows: The building official and his designees are hereby authorized and directed to enforce all of the provisions of this code. For such purposes, such officials shall have the powers of law enforcement officers. (d) Section 201.2 is amended to read as follows: Section 201.2. Right of Entry. Whenever necessary to make,an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this title, or whenever the building official or his authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises an immediate threat to health and safety, the Building Official or his authorized representative may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the Building Official by this code; provided, that if such building or premises be occupied he shall first present proper credentials and demand entry; and if such building or premises be unoccupied he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is refused, the building official, or his authorized representative, shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. _ Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 17 (e) Section 203.1 is amended by adding thereto the following sentence: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the housing advisory and appeals board. (f) Section 301 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 301-GENERAL No building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained as required by the Building Code. (g) Section 302 is deleted. (h) Section 303 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 303-INSPECTION Buildings or structures within the scope of this code and all construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official as provided by this code and in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Building Code. (i) Section 401 is amended as follows: The definition of "Building Code" in Section 401 is amended to read as follows: BUILDING CODE is the California Building Code as adopted with amendments by the Town of Tiburon. (j) A definition for "Building Official" is added to Section 401 to read as follows: BUILDING OFFICIAL is the building official in the Community Development Department of the Town of Tiburon. (k) The definition of "Mechanical Code" in Section 401 is amended to read as follows: MECHANICAL CODE is the California Mechanical Code as adopted with amendments by the Town of Tiburon. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 18 The definition of "Plumbing Code" in Section 401 is amended to read as follows: PLUMBING CODE is the California Plumbing Code as adopted with amendments by the Town of Tiburon. 13-4.7 Mechanical Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2010 California Mechanical Code (based on the Uniform Mechanical Code, 2009 Edition) as amended by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4, hereinafter referred to as the "California Mechanical Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13- 4.7.1 of this chapter. 13-4.7.1 Amendments made to the 2010 California Mechanical Code. The 2010 California Mechanical Code is amended as follows: (a) Chapter 1, Division II is amended as follows: (1) Section 101.0 is amended to read as follows: These regulations shall be known as the California Mechanical Code, may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this code" (2) Section 108.3 is amended to add the following phrase to the end of the last sentence: including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California." (3) Section 110.1 is amended by adding thereto the following sentence: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the Board of Appeals. (4) Section 115.1 is amended to read as follows: 115.1 General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section and as set forth in the Building Division Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 19 Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (5) Section 115.2 is amended to read as follows: 115.2 Permit Fees. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the time of issuance for the permit, pay a fee, which fee shall be as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. (6) Section 115.3 is deleted. (7) Section 116.6 is amended to replace the third paragraph with the following: To obtain re-inspection, the applicant shall first pay the re-inspection fee in accordance with the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the Tiburon Town Council and amended from time to time. ' (8) Table 1-1 is deleted. (b) Section 203.0 is amended as follows: The definition of "AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION" is amended to read as follows: AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall mean the building official or his duly authorized representative. (c) Section 207.0 is amended as follows: The definition of "ENFORCING AGENCY" is amended to read as follows: ENFORCING AGENCY The enforcing agency shall be the Building Division of the Town of Tiburon. 13-4.8 Dangerous Building Code. The Dangerous Building Code of the Town shall be the California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 edition, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file with the office of the Town Clerk, which Code is hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set forth Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 20 herein, save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.8.1 of this chapter. 13-4.8.1 Amendments made to the 1997 California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Section 103 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 103-ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS AND REPAIRS All buildings or structures which are required to be repaired under the provisions of this code shall be subject to the provisions of the California Existing Building Code, as contained in Title 24, Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations. (b) Section 201.3. Right of Entry. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this title, or whenever the building official or his authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises an immediate threat to health and safety, the building official or his authorized representative may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the Building Official by this code; provided, that if such building or premises be occupied he shall first present proper credentials and demand entry; and if such building or premises be unoccupied he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such'entry is refused, the Building Official, or his authorized representative, shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. (c) Section 203 is deleted. (d) Section 204 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 204-INSPECTION OF WORK All buildings or structures within the scope of this code and all construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official as provided in this code and in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Building Code: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 21 (e) Section 205 is amended by adding thereto the following: Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the town council from appointing the town council as the Board of Appeals. (f) Section 301 is amended as follows: The definition of "Building Code" is amended to read as follows: BUILDING CODE is the California Building Code as adopted with amendments by the Town of Tiburon. (g) A definition of "Building Official" is added to read as follows: BUILDING OFFICIAL is the Building Official in the Community Development Department of the Town of Tiburon. 13-4.9 Green Building Standards Code. The Town hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements to enhance the public health and welfare and assure that residential and commercial development is consistent with the Town's desire to create a more sustainable community by incorporating green building measures into the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings and appurtenant development, that certain code known as the California Green Building Standards Code, 2010 edition (also known as the 2010 CALGreen Code) as published by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, herein referred to as the "CALGreen Code," save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.9.1 of this chaptef. 13-4.9.1 Amendments made to the 2010 CALGreen Code. The California Green Building Standards Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 101.3 is amended to read as follows: 101.3 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, additions to existing dwelling units that constitute at least five hundred square feet of conditioned floor area, additions to nonresidential buildings that equal or exceed three thousand square feet. (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) - Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 22 13-4.10 Energy Code. The Energy Code of the Town shall be the California Energy Code, 2010 edition, and the appendices thereof, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, on file with the office of the Town Clerk, which Code and appendices are hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, except that the first paragraph of Section 20.3 is deleted. 13-4.11 Building Standards Code. The Referenced Standards Code of the Town shall be the California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, 2010 edition, Title 24, Part 8 (Historical Building Code), Part 10 (Existing Building Code), and 12 (Referenced Standards Code), as published by the International Code Council, on file with the office of the Town Clerk, which Code is hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 13-4.12 Administrative Code. The Administrative Code of the Town shall be the California Administrative' Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, 2010 edition, as published by the International Code Council, on file with the office of the Town Clerk, which Code is hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. C. Article V (Energy Efficiency Standards for Single-Family Dwellings Greater Than Three Thousand Five Hundred Square Feet) of Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 13-5.1.1 Purpose. , The purpose of this section is to reduce the annual and peak energy consumption of large single-family homes. 13-5.1.2 Definitions. As used in this section: "Adjusted proposed design total" means the proposed building energy use, in KBtu/sf-yr, calculated by the state approved alternative calculation method (ACM) less any PV credit. "Adjusted standard design total" means the performance energy budget, in KBtu/sf-yr, which this section establishes for all building to which it applies. It is defined as the standard design total (KBtu/sf-yr) obtained from any state- approved residential alternative calculation method (ACM) multiplied by the Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 23 Standard Design Adjustment Factor contained in Table A below. Table A "Conditioned floor area" has the meaning set forth in Section 101(b) of the 2010 California Energy Code. "PV credit" means the energy credit applicable to the proposed design for a solar photovoltaic system that is capable of generating electricity from sunlight and supplying it directly to the building; and is connected, through a reversible meter, to the utility grid. The amount of PV credit under this chapter is defined as Wo multiplied by 13.262 KBtu/sf-yr time dependent value energy, where Wo is a unitless value calculated as the rated watts of the proposed photovoltaic system divided by the total conditioned floor area of the building. 13-5.1.3 Buildings covered. The provisions of this section shall apply to all new single-family dwellings greater than three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet of,total conditioned floor area, and additions to existing single-family dwellings which together with any other additions made after the enactment of this chapter in the aggregate exceed five hundred (500) square feet where the total conditioned floor area of the building exceeds three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet. 13-5.1.4 Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to building area used for a secondary dwelling unit, or to any project that received and maintains a valid planning approval or a building permit, or which has submitted a complete planning application or building permit application prior to the effective date of the ordinance, unless otherwise required as a condition of approval of the planning application. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective 442011 Page 24 13-5.1.5 Basic requirements. All buildings covered by this section shall meet both of the following: A. The adjusted standard design total energy budget, in source KBtu/sf-yr, using the state-approved performance compliance approach, and B. All other provisions applicable to low rise residential buildings contained in the 2010 California Energy Code. 13-5.1.6 Permit forms. In addition to the standard Title 24 report submitted to the building division, an ordinance compliance form and worksheet will be required, which shall be available at the building division. Section 3. Findings Pursuant to Health & Safe Code. A. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 require that findings be made in order to change or modify building standards found in the California Building Standards Code based on local climatic, geologic, or topographic conditions. Therefore, the Town of Tiburon hereby finds that these changes or modifications to the Building Code as adopted herein are reasonably necessary because of the following local climatic, geological and topographical conditions: 1. Climatic conditions: a. Most of the annual rainfall in Tiburon occurs during the winter, it receives no measurable precipitation between May and October. During this time, temperatures average between 60 and 85 degrees. These conditions eliminate most of the moisture in the natural vegetation and heavily wooded hillsides. The area also suffers periodic droughts that can extend the dry periods to other months of the year. These conditions can be further exacerbated by occasional off-shore hot, dry, Santa- Ana winds. b. Most of the annual rainfall in Tiburon occurs during the winter, and some portions of Tiburon are subject to tidal influences, there are times that flooding conditions occur in low-lying areas. c. Tiburon is situated within a densely populated major metropolitan area (the San Francisco Bay Area) that generates and releases into the atmosphere significant quantities of greenhouse gases, which have detrimental effects to the local climate as determined by the State of California. II. Geologic conditions: a. Tiburon lies near several earthquake faults, including the very active San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault, and there are significant potential hazards such as road Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 25 closures, fires, collapsed buildings, and isolation of residents requiring assistance. b. Much of the Downtown commercial area is located on bay alluvial soils, which are subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. III. Topographic conditions: a. Much of Tiburon is located in steep, hilly areas; many of the residential areas are heavily landscaped; and many exist adjacent to hilly open space areas which are characterized by dry vegetation and have limited access. In addition, the steepness of grades located in the hills and dales results in narrow and winding roads, and limited water supply. b. The major arterial route between Tiburon and U. S. Highway 101 is Tiburon Boulevard (State Highway 131). Should that highway become impassable, the only alternative roadway on and off the Peninsula is Paradise Drive, a narrow, winding road easily subject to closure in storms and having an extensive history of lane failures due to unstable soils and poor drainage. This would result in traffic congestion, severely limiting emergency access. IV. Adoption by Reference of Tiburon Fire Protection District Findings: The Town Council further adopts by reference all applicable climatic, geological, and topographical conditions findings of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and Southern Marin Fire Protection District in their most recently-enacted ordinances adopting and modifying the California Fire Code. B. The above modified building standards are listed below with the corresponding climatic, geological or topographical condition which necessitates the modification. Building Code Climatic, geological and Section Number topographical condition 501.2 Ia. Ila, 111a. IV 903.2 Ia, IIa, IIIa,IIIb, IV 1013.1 lb, IIa, IV 1505 Ia, IV 101.3 (CALGreen) Ic Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 26 Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5. Effective Date. A summary of this Ordinance shall by published and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of Town Clerk at least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which it is adopted. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption, and the summary of this Ordinance shall be published within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for or against same, in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California. This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on the 5th day of January, 2011, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on the 19th day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK S: IAdministrationiTown CouncihStaffReports120111Jan 19 drafts lChapter 13 2011 Building Codes Ordinance second reading.doc Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 523 N. S. (Second Reading Draft) Effective --/--/2011 Page 27 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subj ect: Reviewed By: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Administrative Services Department Investment Summary - December 20010 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2011 Agenda Item: CC- BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended December 31, 2010. ANALYSIS Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Matdritv Town of Tiburon Local Agency $1798509425.74 0.462% Liquid Fund (LAIF) CDARS (Bank $ 2,0219766.13 0.40% Oct. 21, 2010 of Marin Housing note to $ 800,000.00 0.513% Based on Town Manager Contract Money Market $ 2509000.00 0.50% Liquid Bank of Marin TRAN (Town of $ 5009000.00 4.00% April 23, 2011 Fairfax Note to Former $ 349771.03 5.55% June 1, 2017 Town Employee Total $219456:962.90 Redevelopment Agency Local Agency $191449273915 0.462% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by adopting the report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing - safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the December 2010 investment summary Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Town Manager and Town Attorney Town Council Meeting January 19, 2011 Agenda Item: 4r- / Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District - Assessment Increase BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In 2007, the Town formed the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (TTBID) in response to a request from the Town's two hotels, the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel. The TTBID imposes assessments on lodging establishments within the Town equal to one percent of their gross revenues. Accordingly, the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel area the only entities currently subject to the assessment. The Town uses the proceeds to participate in the County's tourism-promotion program, which is funded by the Marin County Tourism Business Improvement District (MCTBID) and operated by the Marin County Visitors Bureau ("Visitors Bureau"). Last fall, the County Board of Supervisors modified the MCTIB to increase its assessments to two percent of gross revenues. The Lodge at- Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel have asked that the Town similarly modify the TTBID, to fund an expanded program to promote their business establishments. The proposed resolution of intention will initiate the process of increasing the TTBID assessments. If the Council chooses to move forward, the procedure involves two subsequent meetings. On February 16th, the Council would hold a public information meeting to hear public testimony, without taking action. The Director of the Visitors Bureau, Mark Essman, will be present at that meeting. On March 2" d, the Council would hold a public hearing to consider any protests regarding the proceedings. At the conclusion of the public hearing, assuming no majority protest, the Council could hold first reading of the ordinance that would modify the TTBID to increase the assessments. I note that only entities subject to the assessment - i.e., the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel - are eligible to file protests. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve a Resolution Declaring the Town's Intention to Modify the TTBID. Exhibit: August 6, 2010 letter from Marin County Visitors Bureau Draft Resolution Marin Convention and Visitors Bureau 2010 Annual Report Marin CVB - Tiburon Tourism Efforts Prepared By: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney Mann CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU I MITCHELL BLVD., SUITE B i SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 ! 415 925 2060 i TOLL FLEE 866 925 2060 FAX 415 925 2063 1i www.visitMarin.org August 6, 2010 Honorable President and County Board of Supervisors Members County of Marin 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Marin County Tourism Business Improvement District Honorable President and Board Members: On behalf of the. Marin County Tourism Business Improvement ("MCTBID") advisory board, I am writing to recommend modification of the MCTBID assessment rate in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §36540. The current MCTBID assessment is one percent (1%) of gross room rental revenue. It is our recommendation that the Board increase the assessment rate to 2% of gross room rental revenue. This increase will help Marin County remain competitive in the difficult tourism market. We ask that you consider this item at your September 14, 2010 meeting. It is our understanding that a public meeting and a public hearing will also be necessary to complete the modification; we ask that you set the public meeting and public hearing for September 28, 2010 and November 9, 2010. Best :Reg 'rds, i - Y, Mark L. Essman President/CEO Marin Convention and Visitors Bureau CORTE MAD .Er f 4 't 't ~ + ~ ~ tr RA ; FAIRFAX 1 LARKSPUR ( MILL VALLEY ; NOVATO 11 SAN ANSELMO ~ i SAN RA,FAEL ; TIBURON ; VEST MARIN VB RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 RESOLUTION OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MODIFY THE TIBURON TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TTBID), FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVING NOTICE THEREON WHEREAS, the County of Marin Board of Supervisors formed the Marin County Tourism Business Improvement District ("MCTBID") in 2004 in order to improve the tourism business within the County of Marin, which program is administered by the Marin County Visitors Bureau ("Visitors Bureau"); WHEREAS, in 2007, the Town formed a Business Improvement District ("TTBID") to participate in the MCTBID and the Visitors Bureau's County-wide effort to improve lodging business at the request of the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel; and WHEREAS, at the recommendation of the Visitors Bureau, the Board of Supervisors has increased the amount of MCTBID assessments from one percent (1%) of gross revenue to two percent (2%) of gross revenue; and WHEREAS, the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel have asked that the Town Council adopt a similar increase to further promote their lodging establishments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: Section 1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct. Section 2. The Town Council declares its intention to modify the TTBID, as set forth in this resolution; Section 3. The assessment will be based upon 2% of gross room rental revenue. All assessment proceeds will be used to benefit the businesses assessed. Section 4. The time and place for a public meeting on the proposed modification to the TTBID is set for 7:30 p.m. on February 16, 2011, at the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. Section 5. The time and place for the public hearing on the proposed modification to the TTBID is set for 7:30 p.m. on March 2, 2011, at the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. Page 1 of 2 Section 6. At the public hearing, the Town Council will hear the testimony of all interested persons for or against the modification of the TTBID. Section 7. Any protest against the TTBID or any aspect of it must be made as provided in Section 36524 of the California Streets and Highways Code. Protests must be made in writing and received before the close of the public hearing scheduled herein. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a written description of the lodging business in which the person signing the protest in interested, sufficient to identify the business and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the County of Marin or Town of Tiburon as the owner of the lodging business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or evidence of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. Written protests should be mailed to the Town Clerk, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. Section 8. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing on , 2011, there are of record written protests by the owners of the lodging businesses within the TTBID that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire TTBID, no further proceedings to modify the TTBID shall occur. The Town will not undertake new proceedings to modify the TTBID for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of the majority written protest by the Tiburon Town Council. Section 9. Further information regarding the proposed modifications to the TTBID may be obtained from Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920, telephone (415) 435-7373. Section 10. The Tiburon Town Council supports the establishment of the TTBID within the legal process set forth above. , PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on , 20111 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Page 2 of 2 Marin CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU 1 MITCHELL BLVD., SUITE B I SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 1 415 925 2060 t TOLL FREE 866 925 2060 i FAX 415 925 2063 www.visitMarin.org Marin CVB - Tiburon Tourism Efforts E-Commerce The Marin Convention and Visitors Bureau website continues to be a successful e-commerce tool for Marin County destinations, attractions, hotels and businesses. During peak season the MCVB website performs the strongest. During the time period of July 15th to August 15th statistics for "Top Content" web pages were ranked in the following order: a total of 619 web pages were viewed a total of 65,588 tunes, the site gained 11,753 "Unique Pages Views" and the town of Tiburon ranked 9th for "Top Content" on our website. The town of Tiburon continues to be a top performer on our Marin CVB website. The Tiburon webpage continually performs as one of our top ten landing pages and content pages from search engines. (Google, Yahoo and MSN/Bing.com) In May 2008 we began our "Request for Proposal" program on our MCVB website. This program uses an electronic contact form available on our MCVB Website. This fonn is used to collect data from interested groups wanting to bring business to Tiburon for meetings and social events and requesting proposals from venues and hotels. The MCVB provides this service at no charge for meeting planners, businesses and individuals looking to bring business to Tiburon hotels, venues and restaurants. The MCVB averages over 25 leads per month for lodging, group business/social events and restaurant inquiries. (Many sales leads are fulfilled from our website information without our prior knowledge.) Marin CVB Website launched a new booking tool program for making hotels room reservations on our website. This new booking tool was added for Tiburon Hotels in May, 2008. In February, 2009 our new state of the art website went "live". We have a total of over 65 pages of content, coupons, packages, hotel and venues listings, business listings, attractions and new branding on our new website. Social E-Marketing Marin CVB YouTube Channel - Town of Tiburon Video, May 2008. The MCVB has developed a Marin channel on YouTube. The Tiburon video posted on the channel is a narrated inforinational video on the Town of Tiburon. The MCVB has developed a Facebook page and fan page. The MCVB markets Tiburon events and hotel specials on our Facebook pages. The MCVB has close to 1,200 friends and fans on Facebook. The MCVB has also conducted contests and advertised on Facebook promoting Marin attractions and businesses. The MCVB is on Twitter. We have developed our Twitter page so that all our Facebook information automatically is posted on Twitter. We currently have close to 500 followers on Twitter. The MCVB averages 4 posts weekly on Facebook and Twitter. ' The MCVB has a developed a Marin County blog. This blog focuses on the beauty and nature of Marin County and the sights to be seen here in Marin. The Town of Tiburon was listed on our blog in June 2010 as one of our highlighted communities of Marin. Corporate Meetings E-Marketing Efforts: The MCVB conducts quarterly email blast to business travel buyers and planners. The Marin Meetings - e-commerce flyer is sent to over to 900 corporate meeting planners, SMERF, and association planners. This e-flyer lists information for Tiburon hotels and Tiburon event spaces. Wedding E-Marketing Efforts: The MCVB conducts quarterly e-commerce marketing piece for weddings business. This e-flyer is sent to over 300 new brides each quarter. The MCVB hotel wedding venue web page is one of the top hyperlinks to Tiburon hotels. Familiarization Tours Japan Travel Producers (High Level Travel Executives), August 2008, this group was given a tour of Tiburon and luncheon was held at the Lodge at Tiburon. Mexico Media, Mexican Travel Writers (High Level Press and Television), August 2008, this group was housed at the Lodge at Tiburon. They were given a private tour of Tiburon on the water. Marin CVB Annual Meeting Planner FAM. This familiarization tour is conducted annually for corporate, social and independent travel planners. Tiburon has played host to our FAM in both 2009 and 2010. This past FAM in November 2010 we had 14 planners and their guests come to Tiburon, we spent part of the day on Angel Island and then the group had a site visit and reception at the Waters Edge hotel. In 2009 the planners were hosted to a site visit and champagne reception at the Lodge at Tiburon. Advertising The MCVB advertises each year in the annual California Visitors Guide. In the year 2010 the Lodge at Tiburon was listed on our Marin County print advertisement. California Tourism sends a monthly report for requests for information from individual travelers on Tiburon and Marin County. These requests average anywhere from 50 leads to 100 leads per month. The MCVB advertises three tunes annually in Sunset Magazine. Sunset sends a monthly report for requests for information from individual travelers for Marin County. These requests average anywhere from 100 leads to 200 leads per month. Marin County is enrolled as a destination on the "Go California" website, the MCVB provided information, photos and links for the town of Tiburon. We receive monthly requests for information from this website. These information requests average anyway from 25 to 75 requests per month. Golden State Warriors 2010 - 2011 Yearbook. MCVB is participating in the annual yearbook with a full one page advertisement. This yearbook is sold through out the basketball season and given to all season ticket holders. Media Requests The MCVB fields various media requests. Our bureau averages anywhere from 8 to 15 media requests and inquiries per month. These requests come from travel writers, California Tourism, Meeting Magazines and Bloggers. Tiburon has been listed in various blogs and print articles. Tradeshows SFCVB - Los Angeles Receptive Operator Reception October, 2008 at the Marina Del Rey Marriott, the MCVB represented Tiburon. List of tour and travel attendees given to Tiburon hotel sales teams. CaISAE Seasonal Spectacular Tradeshow December I Oth' 2008 in Sacramento, MCVB represented Tiburon. Direct mail with information on Tiburon hotels sent to over 500 association meeting planners prior to show and post show another direct marketing piece was sent to planners who attended the tradeshow. Modern Bridal Fair, San Francisco Concourse, February 2009 MCVB attended show and represented Tiburon. Hotels were given opportunity to offer complimentary night as prizes for brides. All wedding leads from show sent to hotel sales teams. Marin CVB sent direct mailer to 668 brides from the show. Meeting Planners International Northern California Chapter Education and Tradeshow, February 2009 - Tiburon hotel sales people attend this tradeshow. List of meeting planner attendees given to Tiburon hotel sales teams. MCVB distributed e-flyer with information regarding Tiburon Hotels and meeting and event space to meeting planners who attended this tradeshow.- Hospitality Sales and Marketing Association International, Affordable Meetings West San Jose, June 2010. This was a two day tradeshow. Tiburon hotel sales people attend this tradeshow List of meeting planner attendees given to Tiburon hotel sales teams. California Society of Association Executives Seasonal Spectacular, December 9th' 2010 in Sacramento, MCVB represented Tiburon. Direct mail with information on Tiburon hotels sent to over 500 association meeting planners prior to show. List of meeting planner attendees given to Tiburon hotel sales teams post-tradeshow. Meeting Planners International Northern California Chapter Education and Tradeshow, January 2010 - List of meeting planner attendees given to Tiburon hotel sales teams. MCVB distributed e-flyer with information regarding Tiburon Hotels and meeting and event space to meeting planners who attended this tradeshow. Society of Government Meeting Planners, February 2010. The MCVB attended the San Francisco and Sacramento Chapters Conference and Tradeshow held in San Francisco. List of government meeting planner attendees given to Tiburon hotel sales teams. MCVB distributed follow up information regarding Tiburon Hotels and meeting/event space to meeting planners who attended this tradeshow. Misc On-Going Programs The MCVB conducts an ongoing bi-yearly Hotel General Managers, Owners and Sales Team reception. This reception develops rapport and promotes referrals within the Marin County hotel community. Marin County, Front Desk Resource Guide, this guide for Tiburon enables hotel front desk staff helps promote tourism management and provides informational listings for restaurants, parks, attractions and other activities in Tiburon and Marin County. The MCVB hosts an annual holiday party for all of our partners and hoteliers. This event helps develop rapport and promote referrals within our community. The MCVB sends out a bi- monthly Newsletter with information on our partners, current events in the hospitality field, resources and events. CORT'E MADERA I FAIRF'AX I LARKSPUR MILL VALLEY I NOVATO I SAN ANSELMO SAM RAFAEL I TIBUR®N I WEST MARIN VB To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting January 19, 2011 Agenda Item: P~-l 2312 Spanish Trail: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of a New Detached Two-Family Dwelling, with a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a Variance for Reduced Front Yard Setback; William and Joy Norris, Owners; Roger Hartley, Applicant; Jerome Bernal, Shelley Brown, Celia and Ann DeMartini, Robert Harrison, Wallace Quinn, Dennis and Terry Schwakopf, and Sue Zimmerman, Appellants; File #21017; Assessor's P rc_e) N .059-201-32 Address: 2312 Spanish Trail Road Assessor's Parcel: 059-201-32 File Number: 21017 Property Owners: William and Joy Norris Applicant: Roger Hartley (Designer) Appellants: Jerome Bernal; Shelley Brown, Celia and Ann DeMartini, Robert Harrison, Wallace Quinn, Dennis and Terry Schwakopf, and Sue Zimmerman Lot Size: 11,278 square feet Zoning: R-2 (Two-Family Residential) General Plan: High Density Residential Flood Zone: X (outside 500-year flood event) BACKGROUND On December 2, 2010, the Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2101-03 approving a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a new detached two-family dwelling and two parking structures, with a detached two-family dwelling exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback, on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. The neighboring residents at 2310 Spanish Trail, 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane, 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane, 2370 Vista Del Mar Lane, 2343 Paradise Drive and 2400 Vista Del Mar Lane, hereinafter referred to as "appellants," have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 12 HISTORY On October 17, 2002, the Design Review Board approved an application for a detached two- family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback, proposed by Eugene Aureguy on property located at 2355 Paradise Drive. Two separate appeals were filed regarding this approval: one by Wallace Quinn and Sue Zimmerman and one by Robin Moore. On November 201 2002, the Town Council denied the first of the two appeals and partially granted the other, allowing construction of the new dwelling. At that meeting, the Council voted to refer the text of the R-2 zoning section to the Planning Commission to determine whether the text was adequate or to address issues that arise with "detached" two-family dwellings. Minutes of that Council meeting are attached as Exhibit 13. After a series of Planning Commission and Council meetings, on June 4, 2003 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 474 N.S. modifying the R-2 zoning to require approval of a detached two- family dwelling "exception." The Council created the exception process as a means of discouraging such projects and encouraging attached two-family dwellings in Old Tiburon unless the specific physical characteristics of a site made a detached second structure the more appropriate design option for the site. The revised ordinance section included a series of criteria to be used by the Design Review Board in reviewing applications for detached two-family dwellings. , PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants requested approval for the construction of a new detached two-family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. The property is currently developed with a two-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. The structure containing the existing two-family dwelling on the site would remain, but would be converted to a single-family unit. The subject property is a "through" lot leading from Spanish Trail at the top down to Vista Del Mar Lane at the bottom. The proposed dwelling would have one level of living space and an overall height of 17 feet, 5 inches. The dwelling would include a great room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite and one additional bedroom and bathroom. The existing parking structure on the lower portion of the site facing Vista Del Mar Lane would be removed and replaced with a two-car parking pad with an overhead trellis. The house would have grey painted cedar shingle siding, white and dark grey trim and grey composition shingle roofing. The proposed dwelling would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,041 square feet to 3,070 square feet (27.2%) of the lot, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The proposed 992 square foot dwelling would increase the floor area on the site to 2,927 square feet, which is 201 square feet less than the 3,128 square foot maximum floor area guideline for a lot of this size. Section 16-21.030 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that a detached two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone requires approval of a detached two-family dwelling exception. The requirements and findings necessary to grant this exception are contained in Section 16-40.020. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 12 A new two-car parking deck is proposed to be constructed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site, accessed from Spanish Trail. The deck would be built above the existing storage shed at this location. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line and therefore would not comply with the 15 foot front yard setback required in the R-2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for reduced front yard setback. Section 19-4 (b[ 1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that the Town Council approve an encroachment permit for construction of a parking deck within a Town-owned street right-of-way. Any such encroachment permit would be processed in conjunction with the building permits for the project. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD July 15, 2010 Meeting This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. The original project design was for a 1,180 square foot dwelling at an overall height of 21 feet, 53/4 inches. The existing substandard garage structure on Vista Del Mar Lane was to remain, with no additional parking proposed as part of the project. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners expressed concern that view, privacy and parking impacts would be caused by the proposed project. The speakers questioned whether the application was consistent with the criteria for review of detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. The consensus of the Board was that a more modestly proportioned new dwelling, moved further up the hill, might meet the requisite criteria for approval. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. October 7, 2010 Meeting The applicant submitted revised plans with the following changes to the project design: The western portion of the proposed new dwelling was pushed back approximately 9 feet and the porch in front of that portion of the building was eliminated. The size of the dwelling unit was reduced from the originally proposed size of 1,180 square feet to 1,117 square feet. The ridgeline of the building was reduced in height by one foot. With the exception of these modifications, the width, depth, finished floor elevation and location of the dwelling on the site remained unchanged. The existing parking structure on the Vista Del Mar Lane portion of the site was proposed to be removed and replaced with a new two-car garage. The garage was to be finished with a sod roof that would provide usable outdoor space for the property. A new two-car parking deck was proposed at that time. The deck was to be constructed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site accessed from TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 12 y y t Spanish Trail. The deck would be built above the existing storage shed at this location; the roofline of the shed would be lowered to accommodate the parking deck. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the October 7, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors again objected to the proposed project and felt that the project would be inconsistent with the criteria for review of detached two-family dwelling units and incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that, as designed, the project was inconsistent with some of the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception. The Board suggested that the proposed dwelling needed to be better articulated, possibly stepped into the hillside and/or moved uphill on the site. The applicant proposed eliminating the garage structure on Vista Del Mar Lane and the Board agreed that its elimination would help reduce the visual mass of the project. The application was continued to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project. November 4, 2010 Meeting The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans which included the following changes: The roof of the front porch was removed from the proposed new dwelling and the entry stairway leading up from Vista Del Mar Lane was relocated to the eastern side. The previously proposed two-car garage along Vista Del Mar Lane was eliminated and replaced with a two-car parking pad. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications, the floor area, finished floor elevation, height and location of the dwelling on the site remained unchanged. The new two-car parking deck was still proposed to be constructed within the Spanish Trail right-of-way. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the November 4, 2010 meeting. The general consensus of the Board was that it was within the realm of possibility to approve two separate dwellings on this site in terms of compliance with the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance. However, the Board concluded that additional information was necessary to determine with certainty that physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units or clearly demonstrate the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units for the lot. The Board also recommended that the project design be modified to lessen the visual mass of the house. The Board concluded that the proposed parking deck on Spanish Trail was an appropriate parking solution and that findings could be made to support the requested variance for the proposed parking deck on Spanish Trail. The application was again continued to allow the applicant time to provide the additional information and further modify the project. December 2, 2010 Meeting The applicant again submitted revised plans with the following changes to the project design: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 12 kJ 1A The detached dwelling unit was reduced in size from 1,117 square feet to 992 square feet. One bedroom was moved from the western side of the building to the rear of the structure, reducing the width of the building from 46 feet to 33 feet. The dwelling was moved back on the site approximately 3 feet and the height of the structure was reduced approximately one foot to a height of 17 feet, 5 inches. The front porch cover was reinstated to the front of the dwelling. An open trellis was added on top of the proposed parking pad on Vista Del Mar Lane. The applicant also prepared a narrative and a conceptual design for an attached new dwelling unit in an effort to illustrate the difficulty and site planning inferiority of attaching a new dwelling unit to the existing building on the site. At the December 2, 2010 meeting, the Design Review Board determined that the revised project design was consistent with the criteria for granting a detached two-family dwelling exception. In particular, the Board concluded that the probable design for an attached new dwelling unit on the site would have the visual appearance of a massive, 4-story structure. The Board determined that the revised project design would have less visual mass and potential for view impacts than a probable attached unit. The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2010-03 (Exhibit 1) conditionally approving the project. On December 13, 2010, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 2). BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The project design is inconsistent with the criteria for granting a detached two-family dwelling exception. Staff Response: As noted above, the zoning ordinance requires approval of a detached two-family dwelling exception for a detached two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone. The criteria for review of these exceptions are contained in Section 16-40.020, which states that the purpose of the detached two-family dwelling exception is "to limit approval of such uses to lots where the applicant has successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and where the detached units will result in a demonstrably superior site planning solution as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling." In adopting these criteria the Town Council recognized that: Attached two-family dwellings are, and have historically been, the predominant form of two-family dwelling allowed in the R-2 zone. An unregulated proliferation of detached two-family dwellings could substantially alter the existing development pattern and character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood in that detached units on small lots create a de TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 12 :a facto single-family residential land use pattern on significantly smaller lots than is allowed in any single-family residential zone in the Town. The Town recognizes that limited instances may occur where a detached two-family dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot or due to the specific nature of a lot's immediately surrounding pattern of development. Section 16-40.020 (F) establishes the following criteria to be used in reviewing a detached two- family dwelling exception: 1. The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate two detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The subject property has a lot size of 11,278 square feet, substantially larger than the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size in the R-2 zone. The property is a through lot, running from Spanish Trail on the top to Vista Del Mar Lane on the bottom of the site. The size and depth of the subject property allows for substantial building setbacks. The proposed site plan would comply with the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone, with the exception of the requested variance for reduced front yard setback for the proposed parking deck on Spanish Trail. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. At the October 7 and November 4, 2010 meetings, the Design Review Board noted the narrow width of the subject property in the vicinity of the existing structure on the site and indicated that this narrowness could reduce the practicality of constructing an attached second dwelling unit at this portion of the property. At the December 2 meeting, the Board reviewed the conceptual design for a probable new attached dwelling unit on the site and determined that an attached unit would limit the livability of the lower floor area of the existing building on the site, which would render impractical or difficult the construction of an attached unit. The Board also determined that an attached unit would be architecturally inferior to the design of the proposed detached dwelling unit by creating a massive single structure on the site instead of adding a more modestly- scaled structure to the lower portion of the property. The Board also determined that the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of the detached unit design are clearly demonstrated for the lot, including the reduced potential for view impacts on nearby residences. The neighboring homes at 2300 & 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane have wide panoramic views. The proposed detached dwelling unit would intrude into a small slot view to the east from the upstairs bedroom of the house at 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane and into the views from a side window of a living room for the house at 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane. The Board determined that a probable attached dwelling unit TOWN OF TiBURON RAGE 6 OF 12 a r' lu 4,1: { .,1 1 would substantially intrude into the primary water views from the home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The Board noted the proximity of the adjacent residence at 2356 Spanish Trail to the existing building on the site and determined that an attached unit would also likely affect the privacy of that neighboring home. The Board viewed the story poles for the proposed project from the homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane and determined that detached dwelling unit would not substantially affect the privacy of these neighboring homes. The Board further concluded that an attached dwelling unit would result in the visual appearance of a massive, four-story structure on the site, while the proposed detached unit would have the visual appearance of a modest cottage when viewed from below the site. The Board also determined that the proposed parking structures would provide parking closer to each of the dwelling units, resulting in better access to parking for residents on the site. The appellants contend that the location of the existing building on the site is irrelevant to any evaluation of the physical conditions of the lot. The Design Review Board disagreed, finding that the existing house, which would remain, should be taken into account in evaluating this criterion. As a general rule, the Board does not assume that an existing structure will be removed from the site in evaluating other proposed improvements to the property. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot As noted above, the Board determined that the proposed detached two-family dwelling would have less visual mass when viewed from below the site and that a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot would have fewer view and privacy impacts on the adjacent homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane than an attached unit would have on the home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The appellants contend that two detached dwelling units on the site would be less compatible with the character of the surrounding area than two attached dwelling units, noting that 8 of the 9 properties in the immediate vicinity with two dwelling units are developed with duplexes, with only one nearby property developed with two detached dwellings. The Town Council created the detached two-family dwelling exception process to discourage detached dwelling units in Old Tiburon, but also to recognize that on certain properties, detached dwelling units may make more sense than an attached duplex. The Design Review Board determined that in this particular instance, two detached dwelling units would likely reduce impacts when compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. The Board also determined that the visual size and scale of the modestly scaled detached dwelling unit would be more consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood than the massive appearance of a probable attached second unit. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 12 N'b'3. i.. ...~ti,^, At the December 2 meeting, the appellants presented a physical model representing several alternative designs for an attached second dwelling on the site. The appellants have also submitted conceptual site plans and floor plans for such designs (labeled "Strawman" plans) with their appeal. The Design Review Board considered the model in making its determination that an attached second unit would have more visual mass and potential for view and privacy impacts than the proposed detached dwelling unit. 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-created nonconformity, or other pattern of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this Section. The permit history of the lot indicates that a two-family dwelling in one structure has been in existence on this site since 1956, with a second dwelling unit occupying the lower floor of the existing building on the site. This second unit would be required to be converted into living area for the remaining house as part of the approval of the subject application. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets. The parking structures proposed as part of the revised project plans would provide a convenient two-car parking structure for each of the two dwelling units on the site. These parking structures would improve the off-street parking available on the site and lessen the demand for on-street parking on Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar Lane. The appellants note that the proposed parking deck accessed from Spanish Trail would be located within the Town right-of-way and would require approval of an encroachment permit by the Town Council. In 1998, the Town Council approved an encroachment permit for a carport on the Spanish Trail Road right-of-way at 2440 Spanish Trail, and similar parking decks and carports have been previously approved by the Town in Old Tiburon. The Design Review Board acknowledged the limited on-street parking available on both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar Lane and determined that the proposed parking structures would improve parking conditions for this property and lessen the burden on on-street parking in the vicinity. Ground #2: The project design is architecturally inconsistent, too tall, and would create view and privacy impacts for neighboring residences. Staff Response: The appellants contend that the "Cape Cod" exterior design of the proposed detached dwelling unit would be architecturally inconsistent with the older stucco exterior design of the existing building on the site. The Design Review Board focused more on the compatibility of the proposed structure with the visual appearance of the surrounding neighborhood and TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 12 determined that the proportions of the 992 square foot home and the visual articulation provided by the proposed porch cover on the front of the building would be consistent with the appearance of other modestly-scaled homes in the vicinity. The appellants contend that the 17 foot, 5 inch height of the proposed building is excessive for a one-story structure and could conceivably lead to a conversion of the building to a two-story home. Staff notes that the proposed dwelling unit would have 10 foot plate heights and a peaked roof that reaches its maximum height only along the ridgeline. In Tiburon, most one-story homes built since the 1960's have been as tall or taller than the proposed dwelling unit. A two-story home would need two floors with ceiling heights of at least 7 feet, 6 inches, which would be physically impossible to accomplish within the interior of the proposed structure as approved. As described above, the Design Review Board determined that the proposed detached two-family dwelling would have fewer view and privacy impacts on the adjacent homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane than a probable attached new unit would have on the home at 2356 Spanish Trail. The potential view impacts on the homes along Vista Del Mar Lane would be limited to views from a small slot view to the east from the upstairs bedroom of the house at 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane and a side window of a living room for the house at 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane. The Board also determined that the dwelling unit would not substantially affect the privacy of these neighboring homes. , Ground #3: The Design Review Board did not follow appropriate procedures in its review of the project. Staff Response: The appellants contend that the Design Review Board "did not follow any process that would lead to a clear decision" on the application and should have voted separately on each of the criteria for review of a detached two-family dwelling exception before making its decision. The procedures for this exception specified by the zoning ordinance do not require such separate votes or decisions, but do state that "in taking its action, the [Board] shall make findings based on evidence in the record." The minutes of the December 2 meeting clearly reflect that the Board evaluated the required criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception and found sufficient evidence to support the project's consistency with these criteria. It should also be noted that requiring separate votes on individual criteria or findings would be inconsistent with the past practice of the Design Review Board. The appeal states that "staff had to prepare resolutions that made the findings [to approve the proj ect] because the DRB seemed unable or unwilling to make findings on their own." The December 2 staff report recommended that the Board's decision to approve or deny this application be supported by the adoption of a resolution due to the level of controversy surrounding this project. The adoption of a resolution at that meeting was required due to Permit Streamlining Act deadlines for acting on this application. The appeal also states that "there seemed to be an unusual amount of coaching of the applicant by the DRB." In general, the Design Review Board wants an applicant to be successful and works to find design solutions that will comply with the zoning ordinance and meet the applicant's needs while affecting neighboring property owners as little as possible. On occasion, the Board must make explicit and/or repeated requests for project design changes to achieve an acceptable TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 12 solution. The subject application required four meetings (an admittedly lengthy review process) due in part to the applicant's initial reluctance to make substantive changes to the project design. However, the lengthy review process was also caused by the level of controversy associated with the request for a detached two-family dwelling exception, as this is the first such application since the requirements for this type of exception were adopted in the zoning ordinance. Staff believes that the Design Review Board showed diligence in requesting sufficient information and changes to the project design in order to make an informed decision on this application. CONCLUSION In reaching its decision on this project, the Design Review Board applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, applied the criteria for review of a detached two-family dwelling exception, and made the findings necessary for granting a variance for reduced front yard setback. The Board determined that a detached two-family dwelling unit was the most appropriate design for this property. The Board reviewed the criteria for the requested exception and made findings to support its approval based upon evidence in the record. The approval of the project in accordance with these criteria is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 16-40.020 of the zoning ordinance that "limited instances may occur where a detached two-family dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot." Staff also notes that Section 16-040.020 (G) of the zoning ordinance, which prohibits future condominiumization of the detached two-family dwelling, is set forth in Condition No. 17 of the Design Review Board's approval. With respect to Section 16-040.020 (H), which sets forth recommended conditions of approval, Staff notes that the project as approved by the Board complies with each and every one of these conditions. However, to ensure ongoing compliance with the recommended conditions set forth in Section 16-040.020 (H), Staff recommends that if the Town Council denies the appeal, it should add a Condition No. 20 to the approval to read as follows: 20. In order to ensure ongoing compliance with recommended conditions of approval for detached two-family dwellings having received a detached two-family dwelling exception, all future zoning permit applications for this property shall be reviewed for continued compliance with the following: a. At least four on-site non-tandem standard-sized residential parking spaces shall be provided. No more than three of these spaces may be side-by-side, as viewed from any street open to use by the public; b. One unit shall be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum sixty percent to forty percent ratio floor area split between the two units; C. No floor area exception shall be allowed for the project; d. No lot coverage variance shall be allowed for the project; TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 12 w'1 e. No height variance shall be allowed for the project; f. No side yard or rear yard setback variances shall be allowed for the proj ect. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure; 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention regarding the appeal; and 3) Direct Staff to return with a resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 2010-03 2. Notice of Appeal and attachments 3. Appeal procedures 4. Application and supplemental materials 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated July 15, 2010 6. Design Review Board Staff report dated October 7, 2010 7. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 4, 2010 8. Design Review Board Staff report dated December 2, 2010 9. Minutes of the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 10. Minutes of the October 7, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 11. Minutes of the November 4, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 12. Minutes of the December 2, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 13. Minutes of the November 20, 2002 Town Council meeting 14. Letter from Anne and W. Lawrence Drew, dated June 22, 2010 15. Letter from Shelley Brown, dated June 25, 2010 16. Letter from Dennis and Terry Schwakopf, dated June 30, 2010 17. Letter from Celia and Ann DeMartini, dated July 2, 2010 18. Letter from Michael DeCourcy, dated July 5, 2010 19. Letter from Jerome Bernal, dated July 5, 2010 20. Letter from David Whittingham, dated July 5, 2010 21. Letter from Robert Harrison, dated July 6, 2010 22. Letter from Robin Moore, dated July 6, 2010 23. Letter from Wally Quinn, dated July 7, 2010 24. Letter from J.J. and Jane Wintersteen, dated July 9, 2010 25. Letter from Edmee Roeloffzen, dated July 9, 2010 26. Letter from Patricia Bertrand, dated July 9, 2010 27. Letter from Gary Glover, dated July 11, 2010 28. Letter from Pamela Hoath, dated July 11, 2010 29. Letter from Derek Parker, dated July 12, 2010 30. Letter from Jim and Barbara Browne, dated July 19, 2010 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 12 r" 31. Letter from residents of Vista Del Mar Lane, dated September 27, 2010 32. Letter from Celia DeMartini, dated September 28, 2010 33. Letter from Shelley Brown, dated September 28, 2010 34. Letter from Jerome Bernal, dated September 29, 2010 35. Letter from Richard Wodehouse, dated October 5, 2010 36. Letter from Scott von Stein, Southern Marin Fire Protection District, dated October 25, 2010 37. Letter from Shelley Brown, dated October 27, 2010 38. Letter from Celia and Ann DeMartini, dated October 27, 2010 39. Letter from residents of Vista Del Mar Lane, dated October 28, 2010 40. Letter from residents of Vista Del Mar Lane, dated November 24, 2010 41. Letter from Pamela Hoath, dated November 29, 2010 42. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Adininistration\Town Councihstaff reports\2011\Jan 5 Drafts\2312 Spanish Trail.appeal.report.doc 14 2- e ! f 6A TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 12 OF 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELING, WITH A DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLING EXCEPTION AND A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2312 SPANISH TRAIL ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-201-32 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. On February 24, 2010, the Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a detached two-family dwelling (Application #710021) on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. The application was subsequently revised to include a request for a Variance for reduced front yard setback (File #21017). The application consists of the following: 1. Application Form and supplemental materials received February 24, 2010, September 28, 2010, October 25, 2010, and November 22, 2010; and 2. Site plan, floor plans, section drawings and elevations prepared by Roger Hartley, Designer, received November 22, 2010. B. The Design Review Board held duly-noticed public hearings on July 15, 2010, October 7, 2010, November 4, 2010 and December 2, 2010, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C. The Design Review Board reviewed the submitted plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-40.020 (F) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Criteria for review and approval of Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception applications) as follows: The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate t11)o detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations q f the R-2 zone. The size and depth of the subject property allows for substantial building setbacks. The proposed detached two-family dwelling would comply with the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The proposed parking deck that does not comply with the front yard setback requirement is not necessary to meet the minimum three-car off-street parking requirement for two dwelling units, as the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 DECEMBER 2, 2010 EXHIBIT NO. I proposed parking pad along Vista Del Mar is wide enough to provide three parking spaces and would meet this requirement. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility) benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. The narrow width of the subject property in the vicinity of the existing structure on the site would make it difficult to construct an attached second dwelling unit at this portion of the property. The applicant has demonstrated that an attached second dwelling unit would deprive much of the lower floor of the existing structure of adequate light and appropriate egress. These conditions would render impractical or difficult the construction of an attached unit on the site. A second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing building on the site could substantially impact the water views of the adjacent residence at 2356 Spanish Trail more than the proposed detached dwelling would impact the views from neighboring homes along Vista Del Mar. The proposed detached two-family dwelling therefore demonstrates the site planning superiority over an attached dwelling. ' 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two- family dwelling on the lot. The proposed detached two-family dwelling would result in lesser visual impacts comparable to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-create nonconformity, or other pattei-n of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this Section. The pen-nit history of the lot provides evidence that a two-family dwelling in one structure has been in existence on this site since 1956, indicating the adequacy of the site to support two dwelling units in one structure. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets. The parking structures proposed as part of the project would provide convenient parking for each of the two dwelling units on the site. The provided parking would improve the off-street parking available on the site and lessen the parking impacts along both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar for neighboring properties. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 DECEMBER 2, 2010 2 EXHIBIT NO. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the July 15, 2010, October 7, 2010, November 4, 2010 and December 2, 2010 Staff Reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed detached two- family dwelling would be consistent with all of the criteria required for a Detached Two- Family Dwelling Exception. D. The Design Review Board reviewed the submitted plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications) and the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the July 15, 2010, October 7, 2010, November 4, 2010 and December 2, 2010 Staff Reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the visual mass and bulk of the revised project design for the proposed detached two-family dwelling would not be excessive when viewed from the properties below on Vista Del Mar and would therefore bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. E. The Design Review Board finds that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and/or 15303(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the proposed application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and Variance for reduced front yard setback for the property located at 2312 Spanish Trail for the reasons set forth above, and subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit "A", incorporated herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review'Board of the Town of Tiburon on December 2, 2010) by the following vote: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: TOLLINI, KRICENSKY, CHONG, EMBERSON & WELLER NOES: BOARDMEMBERS : NONE MICHAEL TOLLINI, CHAIRMAN TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: DA IEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 DECEMBER 2, 2010 3 EXHIBIT NO. EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2132 SPANISH TRAIL FILE #21017 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 conforin with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on September 16, 2010, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of November 22, 2010 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 pen-nit 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. All requirements of the Town Engineer and the Tiburon Public Works Department shall be met. An encroaclunent pen-nit shall be required for all improvements and landscaping within Town right-of-way. No new walls, fences or similar structures shall be built DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 DECEMBER 2, 2010 4 EXHIBIT N0. within Town right-of-way.. The parking deck on Spanish Trail shall be approved by Town Council pursuant to Section 19-4 (b[ 1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to M.M.W.D. landscape regulations, as required by Town Council Ordinance. 10. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Plarming Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 11. 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. 12. 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 (naive 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. 13. 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 alanms 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 Mai-in. (CFC 304.1.2). 14. The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water- District shall be met: a. A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 DECEMBER 2, 2010 5 EXHIBIT NO. 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. 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. A Public Works encroachment permit will be needed for all work to be conducted within Town street rights-of-way. The parking deck within the Spanish Trail right-of-way must be approved by the Tiburon Town Council prior to construction. b. The public right-of-way shall be protected from damage during construction, or repairs shall be made to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Public Works Department. 16. The applicants shall obtain a sewer permit from the Sanitary District No. 5 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. 17. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, Owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting future condol!.miniumization or subdivision of the property for the duration that the Detached Two-Family Dwelling remains in existence. Said deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation, and following recordation, a recorded copy shall be transmitted to the Town for its permanent record. 18. The existing two-family dwelling on the site shall be converted into a single-family dwelling. The kitchen shall be removed from the lower level dwelling unit and the floor area of that level shall be fully incorporated into the floor area of the main dwelling unit. 19. The porch roof of the proposed dwelling unit shall be reduced in depth to eight feet (8'). END DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 DECEMBER 2, 2010 6 EXHIBIT INTO. 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 W WN'. ci. tburon. ca. us D E C E ~ WE TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL DEC 13 20t0 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary) Name: Mailing Address: H QC) llg~~ 4- - 1, td fit K~ t Telephone: Work) (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): W~~V W-0'2SO TAU i K j\L R. A ~ , ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: _L42R Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: 1 Z [ tp Name of Applicant: ~.1 Type of Application or Decision: -Eo1 u--) at -Fw4t L q GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) 0,t vVsr~-C:L_d-thrR EXHIBIT NO. -2- STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: Date Appeal Filed: C l .3 ZU Fee Paid: ` Receipt No. Date of Appeal Hearing:_ ~42 NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant S: UdministrationlFormsWotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2010 To: Tiburon Town Council From: Vista Del Mar Lane neighbors RE: Norris property 2312 Spanish Trail Date: December 12, 2010 DEC 13 2010 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON We, the neighbors who live on Vista Del Mar Lane, are appealing the December 2 decision of the DRB. We continue to be opposed to the Norris application to build a second single family dwelling at 2312 Spanish Trail (re: plans dated 11/22/2010). Our issues with the approval fall into two categories: 1. The Application a. Issues dealing with Land Use (Exception to the Ordinance) b. Issues dealing with the Design 2. Procedure While there is much we want to discuss here, out of respect for your time, we will summarize our position and hope that it will not preclude a more detailed discussion at the Town Council meeting. The Application: a. Issues dealing with Land Use (Exception to the Ordinance) The application does not qualify for an Exception to the Zoning Ordinance Section 16-40.020 (F): a. The findings have not been made by the applicant We have a rebuttal to the applicant's letter dated 11/22/10 that provides ample evidence of this. In this letter you will see how he has rewritten the Ordinance to suit his needs. b. This is a land use decision. The preamble to this section specifically discourages the building of duplexes as two separate structures. This Exception was meant to apply to a handful of existing empty lots, or those made empty through removal of older homes. c. This approval creates a new pattern of land use and,increases visual density. It sets in motion a change in the character of our neighborhood in which 8 out of 9 duplexes are single structures. d. Our interpretation of the Ordinance (with Findings): i. Lot size: meets criteria-sort of 1. 11,000 sf lot 2. Meets 7500 sf minimum for duplex 3. But, it creates visual density of SSOOsf per lot which is not acceptable ii. Physical conditions: fails to meet EXHIBIT NO. 2, P. 2 ©r 1(, o 1. Lot has no physical obstacles preventing an attached duplex such as lot shape, rock outcropping or heritage landmark. Treating the existing house as an obstacle is not a valid argument. 2. We can show that an attached duplex is a superior design compared to two structures. (See Strawman Design) 3. We can show that a detatched duplex is not compatible with existing homes in our neighborhood iii. Reduction of impact: fails to meet 1. We can show (See Strawman Design) that an attached duplex creates fewer impacts on views and privacy of adjacent neighbors iv. Permit history: fails to meet 1. The poor condition of the existing structure is being used as a reason for not attaching the proposed structure. 2. We feel that this is a self-imposed hardship. The applicant purchased the home in poor condition and has put no investment into improving the house, and now wants to be rewarded with a second dwelling. v. Parking: fails to meet 1. Spanish Trail parking deck in the Right of Way 2. Not consistent with prior Spanish Trail approvals 3. Impacts privacy of Brown and Bernal residences 4. Requires approval by Town Council e. DRB has ignored the conclusion of the staff report. Why? i. Staff has done an exceptional job trying to educate the DRB on the origins of this Exception and the importance of it. However, not once did the DRB acknowledge the work that had been done---to agree or disagree or ask for clarification. Issues dealing with Design (re: plans dated 11/22/2010). a. Poor design ii. Architectural styles of new and existing structures are very different (Cape Cod vs 1900's stucco) iii. Looks like 2 separate owners and therefore a lot split iv. New house looks larger than existing house because of unusually high ceiling heights b. A 16-foot roofline is excessive for a 1,000 sf house. v. What is the real intent? _ vi. This is sufficient height to build 2 stories c. Has NOT moved front of house back out of the view lines of adjacent neighbors Brown and DeMartini EXHIBIT N0. a P, t3 OF Ito vii. Viewline between Brown and DeMartini houses should go house to house, not deck to deck viii. Privacy to both homes impacted by positioning d. Large patio on side of house impacts Brown privacy e. Covered porch has been added ix. Not included in square footage x. Adds to bulk of building xi. Should only be added if entire house is moved back Other: 1. What is long term design plan for this property? a. At least in the Aureguy plan we were able to see the style, size and placement of both homes before making a decision b. If approved, guidelines and restrictions MUST be imposed for the renovation of the existing house c. Existing house is in poor condition and will be needing approvals for rebuilding in near future We invite the Town Council Members to visit the Brown and DeMartini homes to view the feasibility of an attached unit to the existing Norris home as shown in our Strawman Design. Procedure: In spite of the best efforts of Staff to guide the DRB in the correct handling of the Exception part of the application, the DRB did not follow any process that would lead to a clear decision. Rather than taking the Exception items one at a time and voting on them, they simply chatted about their opinions at the end of the meeting as usual. This led to a mingling of land use and design discussions and resulted in a very muddled decision. In the end, the.staff had to prepare resolutions that made the findings (to protect the Town), because the DRB seemed unable or unwilling to make findings on their own. There seemed to be an unusual amount of coaching of the applicant by the DRB. It appeared from the beginning that the DRB was seeking some way to approve the application. We, the neighbors, had to remind them that it was the obligation of the applicant to make the findings and the DRB should not go out of its.,way to make findings for him. For example, the DRB directed the applicant to make a study drawing to prove he could not attach to the existing building, which he reluctantly provided. The applicant was asked in 3 different meetings to move the structure back into alignment with the adjacent homes on Vista Del Mar. Instead, the applicant proposed numerous "throw away" items which he subsequently removed as concessions hoping to appear reasonable. If an applicant refuses 3 times to do what the DRB has suggested for his own benefit, shouldn't the DRB deny the application? EXHIBIT NO. Z P. q aF i c0 In closing, we feel that there is no justification for an Exception and the application should be denied. That being said, we feel that the Exception to the Ordinance and the DRB process for handling it should be reviewed. This very important protection for the R-2 Zone needs more work. At the DRB, it is is not being given the level of attention it deserves. We feel that this is critical to the preservation of the character of our neighborhood and look forward to working with you to improve the Ordinance and the process. Attachments; Strawman design Rebuttal of Applicant's Justification for Detached Unit Signature page EXHIBIT NO. 7 P, 5 or- I (a Attached vs. Detached Two-Family Dwelling Rebuttal (in red) Norris Residence 2312 Spanish Trail Tiburon 11.22.10 16-3.3.2 Criteria for Approval states "Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; OR the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. 1. Both of these criteria are met: 2. Physical conditions on the lot means both the conditions of the lot and the conditions of any improvements on the lot and/or affecting the lot. This would include the existing house and the adjacent house at 2356 Sp. Trail. a. "Physical conditions" does not include the existing improvements on the lot or any adjacent property. It solely refers to physical impediments on the lot itself. Therefore, references to the existing house are irrelevant. 2.1 The lot is long and narrow, extending street to street with access from both streets. •This lot does not merit any special consideration. • 11/20 R-2 lots in our area are narrower than the smallest part of Norris lot •Of total 20 homes in our area 13 have street to street lots. 2.2 The existing house is at the narrowest point of the lot *According to the ordinance, the existing house is irrelevant. 2.3 It has existing non-conforming setbacks on 3 sides. •According to the ordinance, the existing house is irrelevant. 2.4 The setbacks are such that there is only 1 side that can accommodate any addition without a variance. •According to the ordinance, the existing house is irrelevant. 2.5 The 1 available side is the one that would most negatively impact the views and privacy of 2356 Sp. Trail. •2356 Spanish Trail has a deck height of 131.8'. The prevailing natural land is at 120'. With minor excavation, a full story with a normal roofline could be placed in the view corridor without disrupting views from Spanish Trail. However, we can show that when the new unit is attached to the old unit, no intrusion into the view corridor is necessary. 2.6 The existing floor plan can be demonstrated to be incompatible with an addition that blocks all view, light, access and egress from the lower story, creating wasted space that would have to be added to the new construction to maintain the same allowed square footage. EXHIBIT NO. 2- P. 6 ori~ *This is an unsupported claim. Lower story is only 582 square feet and has a view that is obstructed by the Magnolia tree. In an attached design this area can be used for non-view usages such as storage, mechanical, bathrooms, laundry etc. Any new rooms attached in front of this would have light, view and access to outdoors. Without the magnolia tree, these rooms would have bay views. 2.7 Any attached roof, other than flat, in that location would nearly eliminate all views from the living room of the 2nd floor of the existing house. *With proper design of attachment, views from deck of living area (el. 133') would be unobstructed. Furthermore, living room, dining room, bedroom deck over flat roof of proposed attached area living space would enhance desirability of existing home. In addition, a minor excavation to lower the attachment would allow for sloped roof. 2.8 A flat roof would be incompatible with the architectural style of the existing house. A flat roof would be higher than the floor level of the adjacent house and directly in its view towards the GG Bridge. •see 2.7 above. The deck height of existing house is 133' vs 131.8 on the deck of 2356 Spanish Trail. Plus, it is not in the view corridor. 2.9 Any probable attached plan would remove mature landscaping including a large magnolia tree that screens the existing 3-story house from views from below, thereby increasing the visual impact. ' *proposed structure is appx. 1000 sq. feet. Attaching same square footage could be designed in an "L" shape to preserve the magnolia tree and much of the mature landscaping. 2.10 The existing house is in very poor condition and any attachment would necessarily trigger massive repairs and structural upgrades and the possibility of complete demolition due to exceeding the 50% limitation on remodeling. •It is possible to build an addition with a separate foundation. 3. Site planning for an attached unit is problematic: a detached unit would result in a superior product and enhance the neighborhood values. a. The ordinance reads "or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot:" b. Applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate benefits c. Our strawman design shows superior design through attachment 3.1 Access and egress, light and views are superior in a location closer to Vista Del Mar. Access and egress, light and views are not part of the ordinance. However, our "Strawman design" (available to DRB Monday) shows identical access and light and doesn't affect the privacy and views of neighbors. 3.2 Parking is more convenient to a lower location. 3.3 Yard space and landscape screening between the units is better with separation. With Strawman design, main entrance and private yard for Upper unit is-Spanish Trail. Main entrance and private yard for Lower unit is Vista EXHIBIT NO. Z P. r? OF ( (o Del Mar. This provides more space and privacy to each home than a detached solution. 3.4 Existing hedge screening between this lot and 2300 can be maintained while achieving valuable GG Bridge views without affecting the privacy of either neighbor. *In Strawman design, existing hedge would remain. 3.5 Separating the units allows more design flexibility in terms of architectural style. Matching the 40s stucco style of the existing house is not a good option. *With proposed conflicting architectural styles (one 40s stucco style, other Cape Cod) there is no architectural continuity of the project. Further, it enhances the notion to someone driving by that they are owned by separate people. Thus, perpetuating the idea that it must be OK to build a house on a 5500sf lot in Tiburon. 3.6 A probable attached scenario would result in a 60' plus long side elevation in a constricted area of the site. When viewed in elevation this would be an unattractive massing of elements that is out of context with the small cottage feeling of the original neighborhood. *This scenario would result in a 17' wide by 60' long addition which. no architect would ever design. There are many other options. Our neighborhood is full of prime examples. 3.7 Two smaller units are more compatible with the neighborhood that 1 larger unit. •There are 8 out of 9 duplexes that are attached in the neighborhood. 3.8 By separating the units and allowing a new cottage the property would be less likely to be developed in the future in a less compatible fashion. Any new house replacing the existing one would of necessity be located farther down the lot in order to avoid multiple variances. A new single family dwelling of 3100 sf. would result in a 3-story house having a far greater visual impact that this proposal. ' By approving this proposal future development will be limited to repairs and upgrades within the current envelope of the existing house. •Unless there are restrictions placed on the renovation of the existing house, anything is possible in the future. We strongly urge the DRB to consider restrictions on future development to correct any incompatible architectural style, size and placement issues introduced by:the approval of this project. 4. The existence of a 2nd unit already established within the existing house is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is practical or feasible to have an attached unit. To do so would unfairly restrict the owner's right develop the property in a way that is allowed by the zoning ordinance because an attached solution would necessarily have to be much smaller than allowed in order to overcome the conditions and restrictions described above. •It does not have to be much smaller. Norris has requested 100'Osf and we have shown in our Strawman proposal, how 1000sf (or more) can be attached as a second unit. In this proposal, we have also shown EXHIBIT No. 2- eorl& how the privacy of the two units on the lot would be enhanced over two detached units. 5. There is no incentive for an owner to substantially improve an extremely poor parking situation if full use and enjoyment of his property is restricted or denied. •The parking needs of this property must be addressed regardless of development or no development. EXHIBIT NO. -Z P, Cr of ! (v W Q ~ W ~ F- F- X U :D ~ w ~ z ~ • O N z 0 z z ~ 0 F- w z V) > 0 CC cc 0 u :D LU Z u 3: 0 0 o V) Uj 11 (D z Z < Q Q w>- zo~mp ~ N W W J Q Q~~ w W w ~aQa ~ F. O(D Q Q~ N~~ Q a z m 00 NO 0 L40') m ON-IN LO d- 0 Z w • of • Signatures : ome B 10 anish it Date ate / v2 ll02 ~ d SheAey Brown, 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane C,Iih;j Va~rjr1dor Ann DeMartini, 2 3 2 3 Vista Del Mar Lane ate 12- /a-/o Dennis Schwakopf 2400 Vista Del Mar Lane Hi d arrison, 370 Vi Del Mar Lane Date lZ ~0 Wally Quinn, One Vista Del Mar Lane oe 0, Z 4L"~ Date V 11d Terry Schwakopf, 2400 Vista Del Mar Lane z~~~ ! Date l Z 0 ~1~~Date Sue Zimmerman, One Vista Del Mar Lane Lit -f - '.~4L Date ~D Z EXHIBIT NO. P, Z tvi 16 I I _T- EXISTING HOUSE I wlc F ' I :BA__ J1BR2 f PATIO BA PATIO 1-MBR I: , KIT: DR LR DECK EXHIBIT NO. 2- P, 3 OF ll~ l DECEovE~ DtC 13 2010 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON WHITTINGHAM HOME DISPUTED LAND PARKING NORRIS APPEAL: Date':. 12/12/10 Scale. 1•x_10' EZIMMERMAN STRAW MAN Sheet 1 OF 4 Of Sheets C z W Q a m 00 N W a 0.- C: N 2 cr- Q p m N cq O L-_ I I Q Q 4 ~ z m i I W. Z _ I !I W 0 W Q Z• Q i ~ G I ~ W z _ CIC ~I CJ z _ I' i i UL O z HMM ~ W i EXISTING HOUSE BR2 s' . s 1 - O WIC 1 r ~ BA PAT10 1 WIC - BA j r7~ I PATIO _MBR' ~ II DECK KIT DR ILR j NORRIS APPEAL / Date 12/12/10 l' Scale ZIMMERMAN STRAW MAN EXHIBIT NO. Z Sheet 30F4 Pt 15 07:~( o Of Sheets EXISTING HOUSE MAIN FLOOR LIVING ROOM' NEW DECK i I 1 `-a 1 MORRIS APPEAL EXHIBIT NO. 2- P, [ to of l BEDROOM Date 12/12/10 Scale I ZIMMERMAN STRAW MAN Sheet 40F4 Of Sheets RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 EXHIBIT NO. 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and,(f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 2 EXHIBIT N0.__3 Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (fl Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 3 EXHIBIT NO. 3 SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORYPOLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 3 EXHIBIT NO. 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff- level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 5 EXHIBIT N0. 3 FEB 2 4 20;0 TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION O Conditional Use Permit O Precise Development Plan O Secondary Dwelling Unit O Zoning AmendmenUPrezoning O General Plan Amendment O Change of Address TYPE OF APPLICATION *esign Review (DRB) O Design Review (Staff level) O Variance O Floor Area Exception O Sign Permit O Tree Permit APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 21)1?, ;?AM L5 tit 'VgAm- PROPERTY SIZE: f Z7k PARCEL NUMBER: e6l - 241 - "~;2 ZONING: `R.' 2- OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: '2 PHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT: (Other than Prope MAILING ADDRESS: 161 9i' PHONE NUMBER: 16)1 q' -D ~,1JI St~1 `f f~ t Owner) 'A 06 tz fl, R,4,9-1-LEY C. I I`J t~ C R J S~` . ~,o" o " ,A tjk, Z7, 0 e ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): N*.w ~A' FSI(-.~ Crlc-E I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees ' niahi resuit from the third party challenge. *Signature: Date: '94~1' o *If other than owner,-must have letter from owner IT NO. P i dF« O Tentative Subdivision Map O Final Subdivision Map O Parcel Map O Lot Line Adjustment O Certificate of Com fiance c- 2 "►.+`~..1 Other Do. Ic .CITY/STATE/ZIP AX AX 7©7 120 02- 5 4' STATEMENT OF CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLING For this neighborhood this is a relatively large, street-to-street lot with a relatively small house located near the upper street of the property. This configuration leaves a large open area that is ideally suited to adding a detached dwelling located near the lower street. By separating the structures more separation between the adjacent houses, especially the one located at 2356 Spanish trail, can be accomplished. The lot is shaped such that the placement of a structure in the lower, wider portion of the lot is more pleasing and practical than squeezing the additional area into the constricted, narrow upper portion of the lot. By locating the new house away from the existing house, several mature trees can be protected, which will add to the visual screening, privacy, and general aesthetic appeal. There are numerous conditions of the existing buildings that favor separating the units: a) The floor plan of the existing house is incompatible with having an additional unit attached to the lower floor because it would block all views, light, and access to the lower areas, rendering it unusable space. b) The parking area is located on the lower street, making it more difficult to access living areas that are clustered near the upper street- development below is more practical and convenient. c) The usable yard area for the existing house would be negatively impacted by attaching another unit in the only location available for useful yard for that unit. d) Detaching the proposed house gives opportunity for a more authentic and consistent architectural expression because the existing house is a goulash of materials and styles, There have not been any recent remodels of the existing house. The conditions described above are associated with the original design and siting of the existing house. The parking consists of an existing 3-car garage and 1 additional parking area that have already been established, so there are no proposed changes to the parking areas and there will not be any removal of planting or loss of screening. EXHIBIT N0. LI Bill and Joy Norris 2312 Spanish Trail Tiburon July 7, 2010 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon Re: Application for Approval of Detached Second Unit at 2312 Spanish Trail (R-2 Zoning) Board Members: We have read the concerns of a few of our many neighbors have expressed regarding our project to create a detached second unit for our family. Other neighbors do not have these concerns; as a matter of fact, they appreciate this design and the minimal invasiveness of the project. For your benefit, we have attached an itemized response to the concerns of those few neighbors based on letters submitted. We have gone to substantial effort to design a project that results in the highest consistency with the ambiance of the neighborhood by maintaining the existing small home and adding a modest detached one level 2"d unit sunk into the hillside. We very much appreciate the special nature of the Lyford Cove neighborhood and desire to retain its unique character with well designed and modest structure. The alternative would be to tear down the existing home and rebuild a large project of greater mass and scale that would not fit as well with the neighborhood. Please see attached sample site plan. We appreciate your consideration and thank you for your kind and thoughtful attention to this proposal. Very truly yours, Bill and Joy Norris Attachments: • Response to letters, 4 pps. • Photograph of previously blocked view from neighbor Brown's house • Site plan and foot print of alternative attached structure assuming existing bldg torn down EXHIBIT NO. 4 P. S OF I (to Response to Letters from Neighbors Re: Proposed Detached Second Unit on Spanish Trail Norris Property Letter from Celia and Ann DeMartini (undated) Concern Actuality Always been two units Still is, restricted to two units by R-2 zoning Second kitchen in existing house can be reinstalled That would be illegal. Once a second unit is constructed, the original building will be restricted to single occupancy A second structure would be de facto lot split. A lot split is illegal as the lot does not meet size standards so that, when split, the two lots would each meet minimum zoning standards. Even though lot is large by Old Tiburon standards, it is too small to split Worried that potential tenancy in common Tenancy in common is not a lot split, it is separate would be a de facto lot split ownership of specific percentage of ownership rights and is used many ownership situations including single family properties Letter from Anne and Larry Drew, June 23,2010 Concern Actuality Owners of Spanish Trail property park on the So do a number of people on Spanish Trail. Dan street King's old house has an on-street parking space, the Fire Chief parks his truck on the street, so does neighbor across the street, and Sharon Bass's SAT students also park all along the street Where would 4 more cars go? Don't know where the 4 cars comes from, only 2 are required for the additional unit. The existing garage has 3 spaces and is being refurbished, also, 2 more uncovered spaces have been created next to the existing garage so parking should be improved Neighborhood is a small neighborhood, a large Two small buildings better fit with the character of addition erodes the character of Old Tiburon the neighborhood than one large building. That is demonstrated by the large building constructed some years ago just down Spanish Trail and the three in a row over on Centro East west of Solano, none of which are in consistent with the character of the Old Tiburon/Lyford Cove neighborhood due to their imposing mass and scale EXHIBIT NO.__~_ P, q oFi ~ 1 1 Response to Letters from Neighbors Re: Proposed Detached Second Unit on Spanish Trail Norris Property Letter from daughter of Anne DeMartini, June 22, 2010 Concern Actuali Building another structure violates intent of The R-2 ordinance specifically allows two separate R-2 ordinance structures or one with a common wall or floor connecting the two units. In the case of this neighborhood , two smaller structures is more in keeping with the neighborhood esthetically than one large structure with significantly more height, mass and out of proportion scale Privacy of mother's house would be impacted There is one small window on the side of the mother's house which always seems to be covered by the tenant Additional cars would be an eyesore The property has 3enclosed garage spaces plus 2 uncovered spaces and an additional on street space on Spanish Trail Emergency access on Vista del Mar Blocking emergency access is illegal, a serious could be blocked by additional cars using offense and subject to large fines Vista de Mar Letter from Shelley Brown, June 25, 2010 Concern Actuali Objects to proposed single family home The proposed structure is not a single family home, it is a separate small unit allowed by R-2 zoning Proposed structure looms over her home Proposed structure is one story, cut into hillside three feet and is well beneath the height limit, it hardly looms. Moreover, if the existing building were to be demolished and a new highest and best us structure built in its place, the setbacks would insure that the building would be moved further down the lot and most likely would be taller with much more impact from a mass and scale perspective than a simple one story structure. Proposed building eliminates sense of privacy Proposed landscaping will mitigate this, existing from front yard and porch front yard is not private now, and the entry porch is likewise not private and can be seen by everyone in the neighborhood. Most entries and front yard areas are not considered privacy areas. From the second floor, the proposed roof line The view allegedly obstructed from the second eliminates the water and ridgeline view floor of the Brown's house is to the side of the property and considered a secondary view. There is no potential obstruction to the primary view of the Brown's house. Moreover, it should be noted that up until recently, there was a large pine tree FXHTRTT NO. 4 L 2 P, S -OF 1 Response to Letters from Neighbors Re: Proposed Detached Second Unit on Spanish Trail Norris Property The two proposed windows on the north side of the proposed unit look into my second bedroom, living room and front door entrance. The proposed home eliminated green space and separation and adds density Parking is a problem on Vista del Mar and addition of another "single family residence" will only exacerbate parking and congestion Norris home currently has a second unit Norris detached unit will adversely affect and use issues and neighborhood impacts located to the side of the Brown's home which totally obstructed this sideways view. That tree was removed at our cost and behest and whatever perceived impediment to the secondary view from the second floor is an improvement over the previous view when the pine tree blocked any view to that side ever since Shelley has live there. (See attached photo of her view before we did the tree work) This is incorrect, the north side windows look at the existing Norris house and the Whittingham house The green space is privately owned and is not Ms. Brown's right to have. Separation is a function of setbacks and the proposed structure meets all set back requirements. Likewise, density is defined by zoning and the proposed structure meets density limitations First, it is not a "single family residence", the structure is a detached second unit, and a second unit is clearly permitted under R-2 zoning. Second, there is no difference in potential parking and traffic congestion based on whether a unit is a so- called "single family residence" or a duplex second unit The Norris home is small and there is interiorly connected space that was used by the previous owner as a second unit as permitted by zoning. With the construction of the proposed detached second unit, the existing home will be re- designated for single occupancy as a part of the approval process The existing Norris home is older, smaller and, if sold, would most likely be a tear-down and replaced by a significantly larger highest and best use home with a much larger living area, mass and scale, and situated much further down the site as required by current set-backs. The proposed plan for the new detached structure leaves the existing smaller Norris home as-is and positioned at the top of the lot as it is grandfathered. The proposed structure is one story and set three feet into the lot on the uphill side in order to conform with and reflect the smaller scale typical of the Lyford Cove neighborhood. Accordingly, it is, indeed, more EXHIBIT NO. 4 & OF l49 Response to Letters from Neighbors Re: Proposed Detached Second Unit on Spanish Trail Norris Property compatible and has minimal neighborhood impacts as compared with a large structure such as down the street on Spanish Trail or over on Centro East There is adequate space and physical Indeed, there is. The question is whether two conditions to construct an attached unit smaller structures that are more fitting and compatible to the mass and scale of the existing structures in the neighborhood. Or whether a larger structure, potentially positioned further down the site thus affecting surrounding neighbors in a more substantial way, is more appealing and consistent with the existing ambiance of the neighborhood Two dwelling units in two detached buildings For all of the reason stated previously, this thinking would not likely reduce the visual, is unrealistic and factually incorrect. environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to an attached structure Respectfully, Bill and Joy N ri July 7, 2010 EXHIBIT NO. q P- 7 0~(~ VARIANCE FINDINGS Norris Residence 2312 Spanish Trail Tiburon PROPOSED GARAGE IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1. Special circumstances of propert y. This property has an unusual boundary configuration that precludes locating a parking structure that is near the residence and also within the setbacks. The available space within the setbacks is only 55 square feet. The available depth within the property boundary is only 17'. Therefore the only solution to construct much needed parking would require a variance. 2. Special privilege not required. There are many other properties in Old Tiburon that require variances for parking due to limited space and disproportionate location of property lines to pavement edges. 3. Practical difficulty of zoning restriction. In order to create parking that is convenient to the existing house a variance would be required because of the constraints described in Finding #1. Although the parking structure could be located partially on the property, to do so would require a much larger structure in order to connect with the roadway edge. It is more practical to utilize the large area of unused right-of-way so that the parking can be as unobtrusive as possible. 4. Not detrimental to other properties. A portion of the right-of-way is already being used for parking for one car but the vehicle protrudes into the roadway. By creating a code compliant parking for two cars, a potential hazard will be avoided and fewer cars will be parked in the street. The proposed structure is designed to minimize the impact on neighborhood viewscapes. EXHIBIT N0. q 9/21/2010 October 25, 2010 Design Review Board Members: In the past two Design Review Board meetings in July and October, my project designer Roger Hartley and I have addressed the concerns of two adjacent neighbors - Mrs. DeMartini and Mrs. Brown - regarding their non-primary side views and parking issues. The third neighbor with the only primary view over the subject 1117 square foot cottage-style house - the Whittingham family - wrote a very supporting letter on our behalf (enclosed). In this letter I would like to address some of the Board members' concerns and what we have agreed to do. Board member Weller, in July, objected to the overhang porch which would cause a view impediment on Mrs. Browns home. For the record, Mrs. Brown cut trees on our property one morning which exposed the porch story pole. However, we have agreed to remove the porch so it will not block Mrs. Browns view and will make the two-bedroom cottage smaller. We also redesigned the floor plan to accommodate Mrs. Browns concern about the corner bedroom. In the July meeting, Board member Weller said that he would not necessarily be against two separate structures, and in the October meeting agreed that the idea of keeping smaller units in the community is preferable. Vice-Chair Tollini, in July, said that he did not necessarily have a problem with a detached.unit on the site but felt parking may be an issue and the proposed unit would be very high with a vaulted roof. In October Mr. Tollini said there are various ways of designing the garage, including reducing the building, and suggested moving the garage away from Vista Del Mar where there would be more traffic on Spanish Trail due to the proposed parking deck, although he said he was open to keeping the parking below. We have addressed Mr. Tollini s parking concerns by removing the garage altogether, keeping the beautiful stone wall in the rear of the garage and building a two-car carport off-street parking deck on Spanish Trail. Having the two off- EXHIBIT NO. -1- p. R vFA0 street parking spots also addresses the concerns of Anne and Larry Drew's letter of June 23rd and Anne DeMartini's June 22nd letter regarding emergency access. Also enclosed is a supporting letter from Southern Marin County Fire Commissioner Scott Von Stein of Tiburon pertaining to Mrs. DeMartini's concern over emergency access for fire equipment. We have also addressed member Tollini s very high vaulted roof concerns. We lowered the roofline. In July Board member Kricensky said he could rationalize the zoning requirements either way. He said that a more cottage-style house that was set further back, which also dealt with parking issues, might be easier to consider and he said a detached second unit might work. We also addressed these concerns, removing the square footage of the roof. This will make the house appear further up the hill. Mr. Hartley said in October, pertaining to Hillside Guidelines and blocking the primary view of the Whittingham family at 2356 Spanish Trail, we cannot go back any further, adding two off-street parking spots on Spanish Trail, and he also asked for a smaller house and we did reduce the square footage to 1117 square feet, which is as small as a two-bedroom cottage can be. In July, Chair Chong agreed with Board member Krucinsky that the criteria could be rationalized either way. The Chair said he liked the design of the house, although he said there was room for improvement regarding height, which Mr. Hartley did change. The Chair said he would like to remove the walls in the garage, which we will do by removing the garage altogether for three open off-street parking spots. We still have the necessary fourth parking spot adjacent to our fence. The Chair also recognized that the home at 2356 Spanish Trail, the Whittingham home, was the most potentially impacted and felt that the two homes - Mrs. DeMartini's and Mrs. Brown's - would have only minor view impacts. In October Board member Emberson said she could see that there could be substantial view impact pushing the second unit against the old existing house, and she said it would be difficult to make the existing floor area livable with another unit attached to it. Personally, it would also destroy a lovely old home from after the turn-of-the-century adding an attached second dwelling to it. EXHIBIT NO. 4 -2- P, (v aF ((o She also felt an attached unit would result in a long driveway to the garage and it could be visually unpleasant. She characterized the project as a handsome cottage design. She stated that there is a physical condition on the lot that renders a true duplex impractical. She felt that two detached units could reduce impacts rather than exacerbate them. Board member Emberson did not like the sod deck on the garage and thought that if the garage were moved the neighbors would not be as concerned. We have agreed to both concerns. I have spent forty years in the investment banking and asset management business. However, I thoroughly enjoyed an entity I owned called Historic Coastal Properties from 1975-1995. I restored four historic commercial properties in downtown Mendocino from '75285 on a property I owned called MacCallum House Inn. I restored two historic buildings in Woods Hole, Mass built in 1804, one of which was called the Grey Whale Inn, in '83. Thirty miles away on the island of Nantucket, from '77 to '92, I restored three historic properties. In Marin County I restored three "turn-of-the-century" properties - one in Kentfield in'73, a second in '81, a Victorian in Belvedere, 360 Bella Vista, and lastly our home built around 1920. When we purchased our home in 2002, there were three higher bids, all with the intention of tearing down the old home in lieu of a Mega-Mansion. My point being that I added significant value to my neighbors in Mendocino, Woods Hole and Nantucket, Mass, and Marin County, and that is one reason the Whittingham family at 2356 Spanish Trail wrote a letter supporting our cottage. Gene Aureguy of Vista Del Mar is supporting us for the same reason. He would much rather look at a small 1117 square foot cottage than a parking garage and shed. Mr. Aureguy did a wonderful job doing what the Old Tiburon Homeowners Association suggested in their May minutes preferring small units which maintain the integrity of Old Tiburon. His two Tiburon style homes have wonderful landscaping between them. Mr. Aureguy was strongly opposed by some neighbors opposing our new cottage. We are doing the same thing that Mr. Aureguy did with good planning, good design and landscaping, and I believe we will add value to our adjacent neighbor's property. It would be a disastrous error to attach a second dwelling to a 1920 home which would be bad design, bad planning and destroy a lovely old building. - EXHIBIT NO. 4 -3- 11 OF The following Spanish Trail neighbors have written or spoken on our behalf: Gary & Teri Glover Jim & Barbara Brown David Kirchhoff The Whittingham Family and Mr. Gerry Aureguy of Vista Del Mar and Southern Marin Fire District President & Tiburon Resident Scott Von Stein Thank you, Bill Norris 4 EXHIBIT NO. November 22, 2010 Tiburon Design Review Board I believe when you have seen the revised plans we have addressed all of the boards' concerns and requests. We have substantially replaced the cottage's square footage reduced from the original plans in July to 992 square feet. We removed the bedroom from the side of the cottage to the rear of the structure, which reduces the cottage's width from 46' to 33', improving the visual impact from Vista Del Mar. We also lowered the roof again by one foot and will remove the garage structure to open the parking spots to the alternative existing stone wall. There are wonderful mature trees separating the new proposed cottage, very similar to our neighbor across the street, Gene Averguy, who created the lovely landscaping between his two homes. The following sentence from the Tiburon Design Guidelines is very important: "Guidelines are not meant to discourage unique and inventive design solutions nor are they iron clad rules." The Tiburon Design Guidelines had three goals, which we have addressed. We have complied with goal one by, "reducing the effective visual bulk of a structure and avoid monumental and excessively large dwellings." We have accomplished this by building a smaller second unit. We have completed goal two by "reducing environmental impact by making the landscape work for you." The existing Magnolia tree provides wonderful landscape and creates privacy between the two units. Goals three: "Preserve access to views." Primarily, "locate new structures for minimum interference", which we have done EXHIBIT N0._..-L~-_ i3 of /C, by building a small detached, 992 square foot home. Secondarily, the guidelines emphasized "preserving existing views with building away from existing structure." We have achieved this by not having an attached unit to the house, which in our case, simply does not work. This issue will be addressed by our engineer/designer. Thank You. -Bill and Joy Norris EXHIBIT NO.--q- P, ATTACHED vs DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLING Norris Residence 2312 Spanish Trail Tiburon 11.22.10 16-3.3.2 (f-2) Criteria for Approval states "Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; OR the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. 1. Both of these criteria are met: 2. Physical conditions on the lot means both the conditions of the lot and the conditions of any improvements on the lot and/or affecting the lot. This would include the existing house and the adjacent house at 2356 Sp Trail. 2.1 The lot is long and narrow, extending street to street with access from both streets. 2.2 The existing house is at the narrowest point of the lot. 2.3 It has existing non-conforming setbacks on 3 sides. 2.4 The setbacks are such that there is only 1 side that can accommodate any addition without a variance. 2.5 The 1 available side is the one that would most negatively impact the views and privacy of 2356 Sp Trail. 2.6 The existing floor plan can be demonstrated to be incompatible with an addition that blocks all view, light, access and egress from the lower story, creating wasted space that would have to be added to the new construction to maintain the same allowed square footage. 2.7 Any attached roof, other than flat, in that location would nearly eliminate all views from the living room of the 2nd floor of the existing house. 2.8 A flat roof would be incompatible with the architectural style of the existing house. A flat roof would be higher than the floor level of the adjacent house and directly in its view towards the GG Bridge. 2.9 Any probable attached plan would remove mature landscaping including a large magnolia tree that screens the existing 3-story house from views from below, thereby increasing the visual impact. 2.10 The existing house is in very poor condition and any attachment would necessarily trigger massive repairs and structural upgrades and the possibility of complete demolition due to exceeding the 50% limitation on remodeling. 3. Site planning for an attached unit is problematic; a detached unit would result in a superior product and enhance the neighborhood values. 3.1 Access and egress, light and views are superior in a location closer to Vista Del Mar. 3.2 Parking is more convenient to a lower location. EXHIBIT NO. 4 rsoFi(" 3.3 Yard space and landscape screening between the units is better with separation. 3.4 Existing hedge screening between this lot and 2300 can be maintained while achieving valuable GG Bridge views without affecting the privacy of either neighbor. 3.5 Separating the units allows more design flexibility in terms of architectural style. Matching the 40's stucco style of the existing house is not a good option. 3.6 A probable attached scenario would result in a 60' plus long side elevation in a constricted area of the site. When viewed in elevation this would be an unattractive massing of elements that is out of context with the small cottage feeling of the original neighborhood. 3.7 Two smaller units are more compatible with the neighborhood than 1 larger unit. 3.8 By separating the units and allowing a new cottage the property would be less likely to be developed in the future in a less compatible fashion. Any new house replacing the existing one would of necessity be located farther down the lot in order to avoid multiple variances. A new single family dwelling of 3100 s. f. would result in a 3-story house having a far greater visual impact than this proposal. By approving this proposal future development will be limited to repairs and upgrades within the current envelope of the existing house. 4. The existence of a 2nd unit already established within the existing house is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is practical or feasible to have an attached unit. To do so would unfairly restrict the owner's right develop the property in a way that is allowed by the zoning ordinance because an attached solution would necessarily have to be much smaller than allowed in order to overcome the conditions and restrictions described above. 5. There is no incentive for an owner to substantially improve an extremely poor parking situation if full use and enjoyment of his property is restricted or denied. EXHIBIT NO. 6F l(o TOWN OF TIBURON . 1505 Tiburon Boulevard L Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting July 15, 2010 Agenda Item:3 Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail; File #710021 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Detached Two-Family Dwelling, with Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 2312 SPANISH TRAIL 059-201-32 710021 WILLIAM AND JOY HARRIS ROGER HARTLEY (DESIGNER) 119278 SQUARE FEET R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C JUNE 8, 2010 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 detached two- family dwelling on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. The proposed structure would have one level of living space and an overall height of 21 feet, 53/ inches. The dwelling would include a great room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, one additional bedroom and bathroom and a pantry/laundry room. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 1 OF 12 . The proposed dwelling would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,509 square feet to 3,495 square feet (30.1 of the lot, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The proposed 1,180 square foot dwelling would increase the floor area on the site to 3,115 square feet, which is 13 square feet less than the 3,128 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Section 16-21.030 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance requires that a detached two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone obtain a detached two-family dwelling exception. The requirements for this exception are contained in Section 16-40.020. A color and materials board has been submitted for the proposed dwelling and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The house would have grey painted cedar shingle siding white and dark grey trim and grey composition shingle roofing. ANALYSIS Design Issues The subject property is a long lot that stretches between Spanish Trail at the top and Vista Del Mar (a street accessed from Paradise Drive) at the bottom. The existing house on the site is situated near the top of the property, along with a dilapidated storage shed. Both existing buildings are situated at elevations below the street level of Spanish Trail. Both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar are narrow public streets with little or no space for on- street parking. As a result, off-street parking in the area is at a premium and construction and guest parking often overwhelms these streets, creating potential problems for emergency vehicle access. The existing parking structure is accessed from Vista Del Mar. The structure has three individual doors but does not have the depth necessary to park vehicles with the doors closed. Two of the three parking stalls are currently used for storage purposes. One open parking space is situated to the east of the parking structure, with access from Vista Del Mar. The reduced dimensions of the enclosed spaces, particularly when the doors are closes, and the distance of the spaces from the existing home on the site make the proposed parking inconvenient at best, and potentially inadequate for two dwelling units on the site. One possible solution would be to demolish the shed at the top of the site and replace that structure with a parking deck closer to the existing house. Several neighboring property owners have complained that the existing house on the site has previously contained an illegal second dwelling unit. Building records for this property indicate that in 1956, prior to incorporation of the Town of Tiburon, the County of Marin approved the conversion of the lower portion of the existing house into a separate dwelling unit. A recent visual inspection of the site revealed the presence of a second kitchen in the lower portion of the building, which means that this structure is still legally a duplex. The submitted floor plans inaccurately show this area as a bedroom, without a kitchen, with no indication of any changes to be made to the existing floor plan. As only two dwelling units are permitted on the site, the existing second dwelling unit would need to be abandoned as part of this project. TOWN OF TIBUR®N EXHIBIT NO. 5' PAGE 2 OF 12 The neighboring homes that would be most potentially affected by the proposed detached two- family dwelling are to the east at 2321 & 2323 Vista Del Mar and to the west at 2300 Vista Del Mar. The relationship of the proposed structure to these neighboring homes is summarized as follows: 2321 & 2323 Vista Del Mar: This existing duplex is oriented to the south, primarily toward a panoramic view of Angel Island. One small living room window and the side of a south-facing deck would face the proposed dwelling. The rear yard has a slot view of San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge that would be substantially compromised by the proposed structure. 2300 Vista Del Mar: This existing residence is oriented to the south, with sweeping panoramic views of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco and Angel Island, extending to the East Bay. The proposed structure would intrude into the East Bay water views for an upstairs bedroom and deck. The mass of the proposed building would be prominent when viewed from the front of the house, but would only intrude into a view of the East Bay that is already blocked by a large tree on another property. The following portions of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the potential view impacts of the proposed detached two-family dwelling on the adjacent homes at 2321, 2323 & 2300 Vista Del Mar: • Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling (e.g. living room, dining room, family room, great room, kitchen, and decks associated with these rooms) than for the less actively used areas of a dwelling (e.g. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den)." 3 _ `o f .r TOWN OF I tBVR®~ 5 PAGE r7 OF 12 EXHIBIT N0. The proposed dwelling would intrude into the views for a side window of a living room for the house at 2321 Vista Del Mar and a bedroom for the house at 2300 Vista Del Mar. The proposed dwelling would also project into the views from the rear yard of 2321 & 2323 Vista Del Mar, which is not considered to be a "primary living area." • Goal 31) Principle 7 (B) of the Guidelines states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of [a] view, then foreground, then middleground." The proposed dwelling house would not cut into the horizon line for the adjacent homes but would intrude slightly into the foreground views from the neighboring homes. Goal 3, Principle 7 (C) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of [the] center of view [is] more damaging that blockage of [the] side of view." The proposed dwelling would intrude into a small portion of the side of the views from the neighboring homes. `OWN OF TIBt1R®IV PAGE 4 OF EXHIBIT NO. ~ • Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well known landmarks."' The proposed house would not block views of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco or Angel Island from the adjacent homes, but would block a large portion of the view of San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge from the rear yard of the homes at 2321 & 2323 Vista Del Mar. • Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The neighboring homes have wide panoramic views. The upstairs bedroom of the house at 2300 Vista Del Mar has a small slot view to the east that would be compromised by the proposed dwelling. The rear yard of the homes at 2321 & 2323 Vista Del Mar has a small slot view of San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge that would be affected by the proposed dwelling. As previously noted, the location of the proposed detached two-family dwelling would also result in considerable visual mass when viewed from the adjacent homes. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles for this project from the homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar to evaluate the possible view impacts and visible mass of the proposed building. TOWN OF TZBURON PAGE 5 of 12 EXHIBIT NQ. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted detached two-family dwelling exception. In reviewing the requested exception, the Board shall consider the following criteria in accordance with Section 16-40.020 (F) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate two detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The size and depth of the subject property allows for substantial building setbacks. The proposed site plan would comply with the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. The area directly to the rear of the existing house on the site is level and currently includes a private patio area. A relatively short (3'-4') wall to the rear of the patio is situated above a level terrace. The combination of these two spaces creates a large, relatively level space that would support a dwelling unit attached to the lower level of the existing main building on the site. Attachment of a second dwelling unit would require reconfiguration of the lower level of the existing building to provide windows and egress for several existing rooms. However, these are not physical conditions that render impractical or difficult the construction of an attached dwelling unit. , The proposed location for the detached two-family dwelling could interfere with views and privacy and result in substantial visual mass and bulk for the adjacent residences to the east and west. An attached dwelling would be situated uphill and out of the sightlines for these neighboring homes. Therefore, the proposed location of the detached two-family dwelling does not clearly demonstrate the site planning superiority or land use compatibility benefits over those of an attached dwelling. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. As noted above, the proposed detached two-family dwelling would increase visual and privacy impacts comparable to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 12 EXHIBIT NO. S_ 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-create nonconformity, or other pattern of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this Section. The permit history of the lot provides evidence that a two-family dwelling in one structure has been in existence on this site since 1956, indicating the adequacy of the site to support two dwelling units in one structure. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets As described above, the four parking spaces appear to be inadequate to properly provide off-street parking for four vehicles and are inconveniently located for use by the existing building on the site. Section 16-40.020 (F) also states that "in conducting its evaluation of the criteria, the [Design Review Board] shall also review the lot for evidence that its physical limitations are of such severity that a single-family dwelling may be the appropriate level of development for the lot, and shall consider any such evidence in its deliberations." Although there appears to be adequate space on the lot to locate two dwelling units, the inadequacy of the provided parking would make the bad parking situations on Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar worse with the addition of a larger second dwelling unit on the site. Without enhanced parking that more appropriately meets the everyday needs of two dwelling units, approval of a new dwelling unit on the site could limit the ability of the site to adequately support more than one dwelling unit. Section 16-40-020 (G) requires that the following condition of approval be imposed on any approval for a detached two-family dwelling: "Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, Owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting future condominiumization or subdivision of the property for the duration that the Detached Two-Family Dwelling remains in existence. Said deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation, and following recordation, a recorded copy shall be transmitted to the Town for its permanent record." Section 16-40-020 (H) also recommends that the Design Review Board consider the application of other conditions to the approval of a detached two-family dwelling exception, including but not limited to the following: a. At least four on-site non-tandem standard-sized residential parking spaces shall be provided. No more than three of these spaces may be side-by-side, as viewed from any street open to use by the public. Four on-site non-tandem parking spaces are provided on the site. However, with the doors closed, the spaces within the parking structure are inadequate to park all but the smallest of vehicles. Removal of the doors would allow these spaces to be used by most vehicles and would also discourage the use of the spaces for storage purposes. P'aG 7 OF 12 TOWN OF TiB€3ttoN ~-D EXHIBIT NO. b. One unit shall be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum sixty percent to forty percent ratio floor area split between the two units. The proposed dwelling unit would be 755 square feet smaller than the existing dwelling on the site, with a 62.2%:37.8% ratio floor area split between the two units. C. No floor area exception shall be allowed for the project. The combined floor area of the two dwelling units would comply with the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. d. No lot coverage variance shall be allowed for the project. The structures on the site would comply with the 35.0% maximum lot coverage required in the R-2 zone. e. No height variance shall be allowed for the project. The 21 foot, 53/ inch height of the proposed dwelling would comply with the 30 foot maximum building height requirement in the R-2 zone. f. No side yard or rear yard setback variances shall be allowed for the project. The proposed dwelling would comply with the required side and rear yard setbacks required in the R-2 zone. Section 16-40.020 states that the purpose of the detached two-family dwelling exception is "to limit approval of such uses to lots where the applicant has successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and where the detached units will result in a demonstrably superior site planning solution as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling." In adopting this requirement the Town Council recognized that "attached two-family dwellings are, and have historically been, the predominant form of two-family dwelling allowed in the R-2 zone. An unregulated proliferation of detached two-family dwellings could substantially alter the existing development pattern and character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood in that detached units on small lots create a de facto single-family residential land use pattern on significantly smaller lots than is allowed in any single-family residential zone in the Town. The Town recognizes that limited instances may occur where a detached two-family dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot or due to the specific nature of a lot's immediately surrounding pattern of development." The proposed project design does not appear to have "successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts." Although the potential view impacts caused by the detached two-family dwelling would be minor in nature when using the principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines, the view, privacy and visual mass and bulk issues that would be caused by the structure as proposed would be substantially greater than those caused by an attached dwelling on the site. The advantages of an attached two-family dwelling unit would appear to provide a preferable land development solution due to the physical characteristics of the lot and the immediately surrounding development pattern. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 12 EXHIBIT NO. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the requested detached two-family dwelling exception. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, seven letters have been received objecting to this application. CONCLUSION The Town Council adopted the requirements for a detached two-family dwelling exception as a means of discouraging such projects and encouraging attached two-family dwellings in Old Tiburon unless the specific physical characteristics of a site made a detached second structure the more appropriate design option for the site. The proposed project does not comply with the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception, as there do not appear to be any physical limitations on the site that would preclude the construction of an attached second dwelling unit (as indicated by the presence of a second unit in the same building on the site since 1956) and the proposed building location would create more potential view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for neighboring properties owners than would be caused by an attached second dwelling unit. Unless the Design Review Board determines that these criteria could be met by a revised project design, the appropriate action would be to deny the subject application. Revised plans that would involve an attached second dwelling unit would be different enough to constitute a new project and should therefore be reviewed as part of a new application. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52-020 (H) (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review) and 16-40.020 and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. If the Board agrees with the Staff analysis, it is recommended that the Board direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the subject application for consideration at the next meeting. If the Board determines that the application is consistent with the criteria contained in Section 16-40-020, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied to the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Anne and W. Lawrence Drew, dated June 23, 2010 4. Letter from Shelley Brown, dated June 25, 2010 5. Letter from Dennis and Terry Schwakopf, dated June 30, 2010 6. Letter from Celia and Ann DeMartini, dated July 2, 2010 7. Letter from Michael DeCourcy, dated July 5, 2010 8. Letter from Robin Moore, dated July 6, 2010 9. Letter from Wally Quinn, dated July 7, 2010 10. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 12 EXHIBIT NO. ' TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 9490 To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting October 7, 2010 Agenda Item:l Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail; File #21017 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Detached Two-Family Dwelling, with Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a Variance for reduced Front Yard Setback (Continued from July 15, 2010) Reviewed By: PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two- family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. BACKGROUND This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. REVISED PROJECT DESIGN The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The following changes have been made to the project design: The western portion of the proposed second dwelling has been pushed-back approximately 9 feet and the front porch has been narrowed in front of that portion of the building. The size of the dwelling unit has been reduced from 1,180 square feet to 1,117 square feet. The ridgeline of the building has been reduced in height by one foot. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications to the 1`(3vVN OF T'ISUR®N EXHIBIT NOC> PAGE s~ 1 OF $2 . western portion of the building, the width, depth, finished floor height and location of the dwelling on the site remain unchanged. The existing parking structure on the lower portion of the site accessed from Vista Del Mar would be removed and replaced with a new two-car garage. The garage would be finished with a sod roof that would create a usable outdoor space for the property. The submitted plans originally indicated that the proposed garage would cover more than 25.0% of the rear yard setback area of this property. Section 16-30.030 (E[ fl) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance allows accessory structures that do not exceed 12 feet in height to occupy any portion of a required rear yard setback, ``provided that such buildings do not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the area of the rear yard." The applicant has since modified the plans to comply with this requirement. A new two-car parking deck is proposed to be constructed within the street right- of-way at the front of the site accessed from Spanish Trail. The deck would be built above the existing storage shed at this location; the roofline of the shed would be lowered to accommodate the parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line and would therefore not comply with the 15 foot front yard setback requirement in the R-2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for reduced front yard setback. Section 19-4 (b[ 1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that the Town Council approve an encroachment permit for construction of a parking deck within a Town-owned street right-of-way. ANALYSIS Design Issues The revised project design responds to some, but not all, of the concerns raised during the review of the previously submitted plans for this project. The proposed garage facing Vista Del Mar would replace a substandard parking structure with a properly sized two-car garage. The proposed parking deck on Spanish Trail would provide additional parking for the existing home on the site. Pulling back the western portion of the proposed house, narrowing the front porch and lowering the building height by one foot would somewhat lessen the visual mass and bulk of the proposed second dwelling unit. However, aside from the parking improvements, the modest changes to the proposed house design have not substantially changed the project as a whole. The applicant has not moved the house from its previous location and the extensive front porch remains. The minor changes to the western portion of the building and one foot height reduction only marginally reduce the mass, bulk and visibility of the proposed house. As noted above, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. The revised project design is only marginally more modestly proportioned and, with TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT PAGE 2 OF 12 NO. the exception of pushing back the western portion of the building, is in the same location as the previous house design. The limited changes to the proposed house would not substantially change the potential view impacts on neighboring homes illustrated in the July 15, 2010 Staff report, attached as an exhibit to this report. At the July 15 meeting, the representatives of the owners of the uphill neighboring home at 2356 Spanish Trail contended that views from their home would be impacted by an attached second dwelling unit on the site, but the Design Review Board concluded that their residence would be less impacted by the proposed project than the neighboring homes along Vista Del Mar. The sod roof on the proposed garage on the lower portion of the site would provide usable outdoor living space for the new dwelling unit. This rooftop space would create privacy impacts for several nearby homes, particularly the adjacent residences at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar, but also on other homes on the opposite side of Vista Del Mar. The proposed use of a hedge around the edge of the deck as a safety railing also creates the potential for view impacts if the hedge grows taller and into the views across the deck from neighboring residences. The Design Review Board has generally approved rooftop decks only in instances where the deck would either be visually screened from nearby homes or would be situated a substantial distance from neighboring properties. The proposed deck would be in close physical and visual proximity to the tightly sited homes in this neighborhood and result in privacy impacts for several nearby residences. Staff recommends that the roof of the proposed garage be modified to a standard roof system that cannot be utilized as outdoor living space. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the revised story poles for this project from the homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar to evaluate the possible view impacts and visible mass of the proposed building. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted detached two-family dwelling exception and variance for reduced front yard setback. Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception In reviewing the requested exception, the Board shall consider the following criteria in accordance with Section 16-40.020 (F) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate two detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The size and depth of the subject property allows for substantial building setbacks. The site plan for the proposed detached two-family dwelling would comply with the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The proposed parking deck that TOWN OF TIBUR®N PAIGE 3 OF 12 EXHIBIT NO. does not comply with the front yard setback requirement is not necessary to meet the minimum three-car off-street parking requirement for two dwelling units, as the proposed two-car garage and one open parking space along Vista Del Mar would meet this requirement. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that sender impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. The area directly to the rear of the existing house on the site is level and currently includes a private patio area. A relatively short (3'-4') wall to the rear of the patio is situated above a level terrace. The combination of these two spaces creates a large, relatively level space that would support a dwelling unit attached to the lower level of the existing main building on the site. Attachment of a second dwelling unit would require reconfiguration of the lower level of the existing building to provide windows and egress for several existing rooms. Windows and an ingress/egress door would need to be installed on sides of the lower floor that are currently solid walls. However, these are not physical conditions that render impractical or difficult the construction of an attached dwelling unit. The revised plans for the proposed detached two-family dwelling would still interfere with views and privacy for the adjacent residences to the east and west. The revised project design has done little to minimize the substantial visual mass and bulk of the proposed building. An attached dwelling would be situated uphill and out of the sightlines for these neighboring homes. The placement of an attached dwelling unit would also greatly reduce the visual mass and bulk of the new residence when viewed from homes below the site on Vista Del Mar. An attached dwelling located below the existing main building on the site would likely be situated well below the ridgeline of the existing structure and would therefore not interfere with views from any neighboring homes uphill from the site. Therefore, the proposed location of the detached two-family dwelling does not clearly demonstrate the site planning superiority or land use compatibility benefits over those of an attached dwelling. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot As noted above, the proposed detached two-family dwelling would increase visual and privacy impacts comparable to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-create nonconformity, or other pattern of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this Section. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 12 EXHIBIT N0. The permit history of the lot provides evidence that a two-family dwelling in one structure has been in existence on this site since 1956, indicating the adequacy of the site to support two dwelling units in one structure. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets The parking structures now proposed as part of the revised project plans would provide a convenient two-car parking structure for each of the two dwelling units on the site. These parking structures would improve the off-street parking available on the site and lessen the parking impacts along both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar for neighboring properties. Section 16-40.020 (F) also states that "in conducting its evaluation of the criteria, the [Design Review Board] shall also review the lot for evidence that its physical limitations are of such severity that a single-family dwelling may be the appropriate level of development for the lot, and shall consider any such evidence in its deliberations." The revised parking design indicates that parking can be provided on the site that appropriately meets the everyday needs of two dwelling units, and therefore there do not appear to be any physical limitations that would necessitate restricting the development of the site to one single-family dwelling. Section 16-40-020 (G) requires that the following condition of approval be imposed on any approval for a detached two-family dwelling: "Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, Owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting future condominiumization or subdivision of the property for the duration that the Detached Two-Family Dwelling remains in existence. Said deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation, and following recordation, a recorded copy shall be transmitted to the Town for its permanent record." Section 16-40-020 (H) also recommends that the Design Review Board consider the application of other conditions to the approval of a detached two-family dwelling exception, including but not limited to the following: a. At least four on-site non-tandem standard-sized residential parking spaces shall be provided. No more than three of these spaces may be side-by-side, as viewed from any street open to use by the public. The proposed two-car garage and two- car parking deck would provide four on-site non-tandem parking spaces on the site. b. One unit shall be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum sixty percent to forty percent ratio floor area split between the two units. The proposed dwelling unit would be 818 square feet smaller than the existing dwelling on the site, with a 63.4%:36.6% ratio floor area split between the two units. TOWN of TxBUR®N PAGE 5 OF 12 EXHIBIT NO. 6w C. No.floor area exception shall be allowed for the project. The combined floor area of the two dwelling units would comply with the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. d. No lot coverage variance shall be allowed for the project. The structures on the site would comply with the 35.0% maximum lot coverage required in the R-2 zone. e. No height variance shall be allowed for the project. The 20 foot, 53/ inch height of the proposed dwelling would comply with the 30 foot maximum building height requirement in the R-2 zone. f. No side yard or rear yard setback variances shall be allowed for the project The proposed dwelling would comply with the required side and rear yard setbacks required in the R-2 zone. Section 16-40.020 states that the purpose of the detached two-family dwelling exception is "to limit approval of such uses to lots where the applicant has successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and where the detached units will result in a demonstrably superior site planning solution as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling." In adopting this requirement the Town Council recognized that "attached two-family dwellings are, and have historically been, the predominant form of two-family dwelling allowed in the R-2 zone. An unregulated proliferation of detached two-family dwellings could substantially alter the existing development pattern and character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood in that detached units on small lots create a de facto single-family residential land use pattern on significantly smaller lots than is allowed in any single-family residential zone in the Town. The Town recognizes that limited instances may occur where a detached two-family dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot or due to the specific nature of a lot's immediately surrounding pattern of development." The proposed project design does not appear to have "successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts." Although the potential view impacts caused by the detached two-family dwelling would be minor in nature when using the principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines, the view, privacy and visual mass and bulk issues that would be caused by the structure as proposed would be substantially greater than those caused by an attached dwelling on the site. The advantages of an attached two-family dwelling unit would appear to provide a preferable land development solution due to the physical characteristics of the lot and the immediately surrounding development pattern. Section 16-40.020 (I) states that the Design Review Board "may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a detached two-family dwelling exception. In taking its action, the [Board] shall make findings based on evidence in the record. The burden rests with the applicant to convince the board that the project has met the criteria necessary for approval." Staff believes that the project as designed does not comply with the criteria that "physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units" or that "the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE f OF 32 EXHIBIT NO.__~_>- site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot." The applicant has not demonstrated the impracticality of the construction of an attached dwelling unit on the site, nor clearly demonstrated the "site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits" of detached units on this property. The Board would need to make a finding of compliance with these criteria based on evidence in the record in order to approve the requested detached two-family dwelling exception. Varinn~P In order to grant the requested variance for reduced front yard setback, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The property is an unusually shaped parcel, sloped north to south. The location of the existing residence on the site leaves no space within the required front yard setback upon which to construct a parking structure that would be conveniently located closer to the entrance of the house on Spanish Trail. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. It is not uncommon for properties to be granted a front yard setback variance where a parcel is oddly shaped and has a small building area, such as the subject parcel. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. As noted above, the location of the existing main building on the site does not leave any area on the property upon which to locate a parking structure that would be conveniently accessible from Spanish Trail. The strict application of the front yard setback requirement would force the residents of the existing dwelling unit to continue to utilize parking situated well downhill from the house along Vista Del Mar. The lack of off-street parking that is conveniently located closer to the house is an unnecessary hardship on the applicants. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. The proposed parking structure would not be detrimental or injurious to other properties as it would not impact views or result in privacy issues for the adjacent neighbors. The parking deck would help alleviate some of the parking problems currently experiences by residents along Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar. T®wtv OF Tzautt®N (4-~ Pa~~ 7 OF 3~ EXHIBIT NO., _ From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is insufficient evidence to support the requested detached two-family dwelling exception, but there is sufficient evidence to support the requested variance for reduced front yard setback. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, four letters have been received regarding this application since the July 15, 2010 meeting, including one letter signed by 14 residents of the surrounding neighborhood. CONCLUSION The Town Council adopted the requirements for a detached two-family dwelling exception as a means of discouraging such projects and encouraging attached two-family dwellings in Old Tiburon unless the specific physical characteristics of a site made a detached second structure the more appropriate design option for the site. Staff believes that the revised project design still does not comply with the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception, as there do not appear to be any physical limitations on the site that would preclude the construction of an attached second dwelling unit (as indicated by the presence of a second unit in the same building on the site since 1956) and the proposed building location would still create more potential view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for neighboring properties owners than would be caused by an attached second dwelling unit. Unless the Design Review Board determines that these criteria could be met by a revised project design, the appropriate action would be to deny the subject application. Revised plans that would involve an attached second dwelling unit would be different enough to constitute a new project and should therefore be reviewed as part of a new application. RECOMMENDATION 1. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review) and 16-40.020 and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. 2. If the Board agrees with the Staff analysis, it is recommended that the Board direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the subject application for consideration at the next meeting. 3. If the Board determines that the application is consistent with the criteria contained in Section 16-40.020, the Board must make findings in support of these criteria based on evidence in the record. If the project is approved, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied to the project. ATTACHMENTS TOWN OF TiBUR®N EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 8 OF 12 1. Conditions of approval 2. Revised application materials 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated July 15, 2010 4. Minutes of the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 5. Letter from residents of Vista Del Mar, dated September 27, 2010 6. Letter from Celia DeMartini, dated September 28, 2010 7. Letter from Shelley Brown, dated September 28, 2010 8. Letter from Jerome Bernal, dated September 29, 2010 9. Submitted plans Towty OF TIBuRON ~ PAGE 3 OF 12 EXHIBIT N0. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROPOSAL Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting November 4, 2010 Agenda Item:l 2312 Spanish Trail; File #21017 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Detached Two-Family Dwelling, with Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a Variance for reduced Front Yard Setback (Continued from October 7, 2010) The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two- family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. BACKGROUND This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the project that included the following changes: The western portion of the proposed second dwelling was pushed back approximately 9 feet and the front porch was narrowed in front of that portion of the building. The size of the dwelling unit was reduced from 1,180 square feet to 1,117 square feet. The ridgeline of the building was reduced in height by one foot. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications to the western portion of the building, the width, depth, finished floor height and location of the dwelling on the site remained unchanged. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE l OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. -7 The existing parking structure on the lower portion of the site accessed from Vista Del Mar was to be removed and replaced with a new two-car garage. The garage was to be finished with a sod roof to create a usable outdoor space for the property. A new two-car parking deck was proposed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site accessed from Spanish Trail. The deck was to be built above the existing storage shed at this location, with the roofline of the shed lowered to accommodate the parking deck. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the October 7, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors again objected to the proposed project and felt that the application would be inconsistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units and incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that, as designed, the project did not meet the criteria for a detached two- family dwelling exception. The Board suggested that the proposed dwelling needed to be better articulated, possibly stepped into the hillside and/or moved uphill on the site. The applicant proposed eliminating the garage structure on Vista Del Mar and the Board felt that that would help reduce the visual mass of the project. The application was again continued to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project. REVISED PROJECT DESIGN The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The following changes have been made to the project design: The roof of the front porch has been removed from the proposed second dwelling and the entry stairway leading up from Vista Del Mar has been relocated to the eastern side. The previously proposed two-car garage along Vista Del Mar has been eliminated and replaced with a two-car parking pad. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications, the floor area, height and location of the dwelling on the site remain unchanged. The new two-car parking deck is still proposed to be constructed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site accessed from Spanish Trail. ANALYSIS Design Issues The revised project design again responds to some, but not all, of the concerns raised during the review of the previously submitted plans for this project. The proposed parking pad on Vista Del Mar would replace a substandard parking structure, would eliminate the additional building mass when viewed from the street below the site and do away with the potential view and privacy issues that would have resulted from the previously proposed rooftop deck above the garage. The Town OF TIBUR®N PAGE 2 OF ~1 EXHIBIT N0. 7 elimination of the porch across the front of the proposed second dwelling unit would slightly lessen the mass of the new building, but does nothing to step the building into the site or move the structure uphill as recommended by the Design Review Board. The modest changes to the proposed project design have not substantially changed the project as a whole. The applicant has once again declined to move the house from its previous location and the elimination of the front porch would only marginally reduce the mass, bulk and visibility of the proposed house. The.limited changes to the proposed house would not substantially change the potential view impacts on neighboring homes illustrated in the July 15, 2010 Staff report, attached as an exhibit to this report. At the previous Board meetings, the representatives of the owners of the uphill neighboring home at 2356 Spanish Trail have contended that views from their home would be impacted by an attached second dwelling unit on the site. The Design Review Board concluded that their residence would be less impacted by the proposed project than the neighboring homes along Vista Del Mar. A large second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing house could conceivably create view impacts for the neighboring home. It should be noted, however, that a second dwelling unit has been contained within the lower portion of the existing building on the site and an addition to expand the lower floor to create a larger attached second dwelling unit could be accomplished without creating excessive visual mass and blocking views for the neighboring residence. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the revised story poles for this project from the homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar and 2356 Spanish Trail to evaluate the possible view impacts and visible mass of the proposed building. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted detached, two-family dwelling exception and variance for reduced front yard setback. Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception In reviewing the requested exception, the Board shall consider the following criteria in accordance with Section 16-40.020 (F) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate two detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The size and depth of the subject property allows for substantial building setbacks. The site plan for the proposed detached two-family dwelling would comply with the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. The proposed parking deck that does not comply with the front yard setback requirement is not necessary to meet the minimum three-car off-street parking requirement for two dwelling units, as TOWN OF TIBUR®N PAGE ~ OF 1~ EXHIBIT NO. ~ the proposed parking pad along Vista Del Mar is wide enough to provide three parking spaces and would meet this requirement. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot At the October 7, 2010 meeting, the Design Review Board noted the narrow width of the subject property in the vicinity of the existing structure on the site and indicated that this narrowness could snake it difficult to construct an attached second dwelling unit at this portion of the property. The representatives of the owners of the adjacent residence at 2356 Spanish Trail have indicated that a large or tall second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing building on the site could substantially impact their water views. The revised plans for the proposed detached two-family dwelling would still interfere with views and privacy for the adjacent residences to the east and west. The revised project design has only marginally reduced the substantial visual mass and bulk of the proposed building. The terraced area below the existing structure and the presence of the existing lower floor that has historically been utilized as an attached second dwelling unit create opportunities for an expanded attached second dwelling unit on the site with a single-story floor plan similar to that proposed for the detached dwelling unit. An attached addition to the existing building could utilize the existing lower floor level and the terrain changes provided by the terraced yard to create an attached second dwelling unit that would completely eliminate any potential view, privacy and visual massing impacts on neighboring homes on Vista Del Mar without affecting the residence on 2356 Spanish Trail. Due to the potential for an attached second dwelling unit that would reduce or eliminate possible impacts on neighboring homes without affecting other residences in the vicinity, the proposed detached two-family dwelling does not clearly demonstrate the site planning superiority or land use compatibility benefits over those of an attached dwelling. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot As noted above, the proposed detached two-family dwelling would result in greater visual and privacy impacts comparable to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-create nonconformity, or other pattern of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this Section. TOWI1! OF TISUROfY PAGE 4 OF 11 `7 EXHIBIT N0. The permit history of the lot provides evidence that a two-family dwelling in one structure has been in existence on this site since 1956, indicating the adequacy of the site to support two dwelling units in one structure. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets. The parking structures now proposed as part of the revised project plans would provide convenient parking for each of the two dwelling units on the site. The provided parking would improve the off-street parking available on the site and lessen the parking impacts along both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar for neighboring properties. Section 16-40.020 (F) also states that "in conducting its evaluation of the criteria, the [Design Review Board] shall also review the lot for evidence that its physical limitations are of such severity that a single-family dwelling may be the appropriate level of development for the lot, and shall consider any such evidence in its deliberations." The proposed parking design indicates that parking can be provided on the site that appropriately meets the everyday needs of two dwelling units, and therefore there do not appear to be any physical limitations that would necessitate restricting the development of the site to one single-family dwelling. Section 16-40-020 (G) requires that the following condition of approval be imposed on any approval for a detached two-family dwelling: "Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, Owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting future condominiumization or subdivision of the property for the duration that the Detached Two-Family Dwelling remains in existence. Said deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation, and following recordation, a recorded copy shall be transmitted to the Town for its permanent record.'' Section 16-40-020 (H) also recommends that the Design Review Board consider the application of other conditions to the approval of a detached two-family dwelling exception, including but not limited to the following: a. At least four on-site non-tandem standard-sized residential parking spaces shall be provided. No more than three of these spaces may be side-by-side, as viewed from any street open to use by the public. The proposed two-car parking pad and two-car parking deck would provide at least four on-site non-tandem parking spaces on the site. b. One unit shall be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum sixty percent to forty percent ratio floor area split between the two units. The proposed dwelling unit would be 818 square feet smaller than the existing TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 5 OF 11 . dwelling on the site, with a 63.4%:36.6% ratio floor area split between the two units. C. No floor area exception shall be allowed for the project. The combined floor area of the two dwelling units would comply with the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. d. No lot coverage variance shall be allowed for the project. The structures on the site would comply with the 35.0% maximum lot coverage required in the R-2 zone. e. No height variance shall be allowed for the project The 17 foot, 5 inch height of the proposed dwelling would comply with the 30 foot maximum building height requirement in the R-2 zone. f. No side yard or rear yard setback variances shall be allowed for the project. The proposed dwelling would comply with the required side and rear yard setbacks required in the R-2 zone. Section 16-40.020 states that the purpose of the detached two-family dwelling exception, is "to limit approval of such uses to lots where the applicant has successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and where the detached units will result in a demonstrably superior site planning solution as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling." In adopting this requirement the Town Council recognized that "attached two-family dwellings are, and have historically been, the predominant fonn of two-family dwelling allowed in the R-2 zone. An unregulated proliferation of detached two-family dwellings could substantially alter the existing development pattern and character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood in that detached units on small lots create a de facto single-family residential land use pattern on significantly smaller lots than is allowed in any single-family residential zone in the Town. The Town recognizes that limited instances may occur where a detached two-family dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot or due to the specific nature of a lot's immediately surrounding pattern of development." The proposed project design does not appear to have "successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts." Although the potential view impacts caused by the detached two-family dwelling would be minor in nature when using the principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines, the view, privacy and visual mass and bulk issues that would be caused by the structure as proposed would be substantially greater than those caused by an attached dwelling on the site. The advantages of an attached two-family dwelling unit would appear to provide a preferable land development solution due to the physical characteristics of the lot and the immediately surrounding development pattern. Section 16-40.020(I) states that the Design Review Board "may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a detached two-family dwelling exception. In taking its action, the [Board] shall make findings based on evidence in the record. The burden rests with the applicant to convince the board that the project has met the criteria necessary for approval.'' Staff TOWN OF TiBURON `7 PAGE 6 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO, believes that the revised project still does not comply with the criteria that "physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units" or that "the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot." The applicant has not clearly demonstrated the "site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits" of detached units on this property. The applicant contends that modifications to the existing lower level of the main building on the site, which has historically been used as an attached second dwelling unit, that would occur with the construction of a new attached dwelling unit, would necessitate window and/or egress changes that would be difficult or impractical The Board would need to make a finding of compliance with these criteria based on evidence in the record in order to approve the requested detached two-family dwelling exception. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is insufficient evidence to support the requested detached two-family dwelling exception. VnrinnrP As noted in the Staff report dated October 7, 2010, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the requested variance for reduced front yard setback. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, two letters have been received regarding this application since the October 7, 2010 meeting, including a letter from the Southern Marin Fire Protection District, which does not have jurisdiction over this property. CONCLUSION The Town Council adopted the requirements for a detached two-family dwelling exception as a means of discouraging such projects and encouraging attached two-family dwellings in Old Tiburon unless the specific physical characteristics of a site made a detached second structure the more appropriate design option for the site. Staff believes that the revised project design still does not comply with the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception, as there do not appear to be any physical limitations on the site that would preclude the construction of an attached second dwelling unit (as indicated by the presence of a second unit in the same building on the site since 1956) and the proposed building location would still create more potential view, privacy and visual mass and bulk problems for neighboring properties owners than would be caused by an attached second dwelling unit. The basic design of the proposed detached two-family dwelling unit has not changed since the original submittal, despite repeated recommendations by the Design Review Board to make substantial modifications and a lack of support for the project at two previous meetings. The applicant has made only modest changes to the exterior design of the building and has not changed the basic footprint and building design of the structure since the initial project submittal, and the bulk of the proposed dwelling has not been moved at all. Although changes have been made to provide more appropriate parking for the property, the only substantive modifications to the house design have been to eliminate the front porch, lower the roof and push one section of the structure back slightly. Town OF TIBURON AGE ~ OF 11 EXHIBIT N0. ~ - Given the applicant's demonstrated reluctance to substantially change the project design as directed by the Design Review Board, Staff recommends that at this time the Board should either deny the application, or approve the project only if the Board determines that the project is consistent with the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review) and 16-40.020 and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. 2. If the Board agrees with the Staff analysis, it is recommended that the Board direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the subject application for consideration at the next meeting. 3. If the Board determines that the application is consistent with the criteria contained in Section 16-40.020, the Board must make findings in support of these criteria based on evidence in the record. If the project is approved, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied to the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Description of project changes and letter from applicant, dated October 25, 2010 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated July 15, 2010 4. Design Review Board Staff report dated October 7, 2010 5. Minutes of the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 6. Letter from Scott von Stein, Southern Marin Fire Protection District 7. Letter from Shelley Brown, dated October 27, 2010 8. Submitted plans TOWN OF TYBURON PAGE 8 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. '7 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 December 2, 2010 Agenda Item:l 2312 Spanish Trail; File #21017 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Detached Two-Family Dwelling, with Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a Variance for reduced Front Yard Setback (Continued from November 4, 2010) The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two- family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. BACKGROUND This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the project that included the following changes: The western portion of the proposed second dwelling was pushed back approximately 9 feet and the front porch was narrowed in front of that portion of the building. The size of the dwelling unit was reduced from 1,180 square feet to 1,117 square feet. The ridgeline of the building was reduced in height by one foot. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications to the western portion of the building, the width, depth, finished floor height and location of the dwelling on the site remained unchanged. TOWN OF TIBURON ~ PAGE 1 OF 9 ~X1IIBIT NO. 8 The existing parking structure on the lower portion of the site accessed from Vista Del Mar was to be removed and replaced with a new two-car garage. The garage was to be finished with a sod roof to create a usable outdoor space for the property. A new two-car parking deck was proposed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site accessed from Spanish Trail. The deck was to be built above the existing storage shed at this location, with the roofline of the shed lowered to accommodate the parking deck. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the October 7, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors again objected to the proposed project and felt that the application would be inconsistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units and incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that, as designed, the project did not meet the criteria for a detached two- family dwelling exception. The Board suggested that the proposed dwelling needed to be better articulated, possibly stepped into the hillside and/or moved uphill on the site. The applicant proposed eliminating the garage structure on Vista Del Mar and the Board felt that that would help reduce the visual mass of the project. The application was again continued to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project. The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans which included the following changes: The roof of the front porch was removed from the proposed second dwelling and the entry stairway leading up from Vista Del Mar was relocated to the eastern side. The previously proposed two-car garage along Vista Del Mar was eliminated and replaced with a two-car parking pad. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications, the floor area, height and location of the dwelling on the site remained unchanged. The new two-car parking deck was still proposed to be constructed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site, accessed from Spanish Trail. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the November 4, 2010 meeting. The Board appeared to be generally in consensus that it was possible to approve two separate dwellings on this site in terms of the ordinance requirements, but requested additional information to determine that physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units or clearly demonstrate the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units for the lot. The Board also recommended that the project design be modified to lessen the visual mass of the house. The application was again continued to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project. REVISED PROJECT DESIGN The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The following changes have been made to the project design: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 9 ~9 EXHIBIT NO. Board INA ? s~... s.• *.isue" 2 0 S The detached dwelling unit has been reduced in size from 1,117 square feet to 992 square feet. One bedroom has been moved from the western side of the building to the rear of the structure, reducing the width of the building from 46 feet to 33 feet. The dwelling has been moved back on the site approximately 3 feet and the height of the structure has been reduced approximately one foot. The front porch cover has been reinstated to the front of the dwelling. An open trellis has been added on top of the proposed parking pad on Vista Del Mar. The applicant has prepared written comments and a conceptual design for an attached second dwelling unit to illustrate the difficulty of attaching a second dwelling unit to the existing building on the site. ANALYSIS Design Issues The revised project design responds to some of the concerns raised during the review of the previously submitted plans for this project. The reduced floor area, width and height and the relocated siting of the proposed dwelling unit would reduce the visual mass of the building and the front porch cover would add articulation to the structure. The trellis over the proposed parking pad would also increase the visual articulation of the structures on the site. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the revised story poles for this project from the homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar and 2356 Spanish Trail to evaluate the possible view impacts and visible mass of the proposed building. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted detached two-family dwelling exception and variance for reduced front yard setback. In its previous reviews of the requested exception, the Board considered the criteria listed in Section 16-40.020 (F) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. It was the consensus of the Board that the application was consistent with most of the criteria, as described in the previous Staff reports. At the November 4, 2010 meeting, the Board determined that the applicant had not yet demonstrated consistency with two of the remaining criteria. The revised project design must be evaluated for consistency with the following criteria: 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 9 EXHIBIT N0. : t:i I),c~s In 1.~. Jc-'A; l o-trc i-".. I.)c..-:c.rri~,c:r Ali` At the October 7 and November 4, 2010 meetings, the Design Review Board noted the narrow width of the subject property in the vicinity of the existing structure on the site and indicated that this narrowness could make it difficult to construct an attached second dwelling unit at this portion of the property. The representatives of the owners of the adjacent residence at 2356 Spanish Trail have indicated that a large or tall second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing building on the site could substantially impact their water views. The applicant has submitted written comments regarding this criterion, attached as Attachment 3. In addition to the narrowness of the site, the applicant notes that the existing structure on the site extends to within both side yard and the front yard setbacks, limiting the area upon which to locate an attached second dwelling. The applicant also contends that an attached unit, unless designed with a flat roof, would block views from the second floor of the existing building, would be architecturally incompatible with the existing building and would likely involve the removal of a large magnolia tree on the site. The applicant also contends that a detached second dwelling unit would demonstrate site planning superiority, as such a design would provide the residents of the new dwelling with better views, better access to parking and a yard and landscaped buffer between the two homes on the site. The applicant asserts that separating the two dwelling units allows for more architectural flexibility and eliminates the potential for a very long building elevation on a narrow portion of the property. The applicant has submitted conceptual design plans illustrating a potential attached second dwelling unit. The flat roof design solution would accommodate roughly the same floor plan as the currently proposed detached dwelling unit. The low roofline of this design would not likely intrude into the views of the adjacent home at 2356 Spanish Trail. Staff believes that this is a plausible building design that indicates that an attached second dwelling unit is practical on the site. The floor plans of the existing building indicate that new windows could be added to the eastern side of the lower floor area if a new dwelling unit was attached to the rear of the building. The applicant contends that such a design would be architecturally inferior and would still result in design difficulties for the existing building, would block the windows of the existing lower floor, and would limit the ventilation and egress for this space. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot As noted above, the revised project design would reduce the visual impacts of the proposed project when viewed from below on Vista Del Mar. The applicant contends that the view impacts that would likely be caused on the residence at 2356 Spanish Trail by an attached second dwelling unit would be greater than TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 EXHIBIT N0. those that would be caused on the homes at 2321 & 2300 Vista Del Mar by the revised project design. As noted in the previous Staff reports for this project, the Board detennined that the project was consistent with the other criteria contained in Section 16-40.020 for review of a detached two- family dwelling exception. The Board also had indicated that it could make the findings necessary for the variance for reduced front yard setback. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding this application since the November 4, 2010 meeting. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT The State Permit Streamlining Act requires that the Town take action on an application within a specified time period. The Act allows the applicant to grant a one time, 90-day extension to the deadlines for making a decision, and the applicant has granted the time extension for this application. The extended deadline for this application will expire on December 13, 2010. Therefore, the Design Review Board must make a decision on this application at the December 2 meeting. Failure to make a decision would result in automatic approval of the application. CONCLUSION The revised project design appears to address the Design Review Board's concerns about reducing the visual mass of the proposed building. The applicant has provided written comments and a conceptual plan for an attached second dwelling unit to attempt to demonstrate compliance with the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception. , Section 16-40.020(I) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that the Design Review Board "may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a detached two-family dwelling exception. In taking its action, the [Board] shall make findings based on evidence in the record. The burden rests with the applicant to convince the board that the project has met the criteria necessary for approval." If the Board wishes to approve this project, in its deliberations it must explain how the application is consistent with these criteria before taking action on the application. Due to the level of controversy surrounding this project, Staff recommends that the Board's decision to approve or deny this application be supported by the adoption of a resolution either approving or denying the application. Draft resolutions for each option are attached and may be modified by the Board prior to adoption. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 9 EXHIBIT NO. R.e.vk nv Board RECOMMENDATION 1. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review) and 16-40.020. 2. If the Board determines that the application is consistent with the criteria contained in Section 16-40.020, the Board must make findings in support of these criteria based on evidence in the record and should detennine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301, and vote to adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving the application, with conditions of approval to be applied to the project. 3. If the Board determines that the application is inconsistent with the criteria contained in Section 16-40.020, the Board should vote to adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2) denying the application. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft resolution of approval 2. Draft resolution of denial 3. Description of project changes and letters from applicant, dated November 22 & 23, 2010 4. Design Review Board Staff report dated July 15, 2010 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated October 7, 2010 6. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 4, 2010 7. Minutes of the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 8. Minutes of the October 7, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 9. Minutes of the November 4, 2010 Design Review Board meeting 10. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON ci PAGE 6 OF 9 EXHIBIT N0. Chair Chong said that his largest concern was the view impact on the uphill neighbor. He noted that trees can die or be removed, but the addition would remain. He stated that the Board has supported two-story designs in flat neighborhoods that do not affect neighbors' views, but the Board has also supported variances so construction can occur in setbacks to avoid blocking views with two-story additions. He supported a continuance to allow the applicant to explore a one-story addition, with possible variances. Boardmember Kricensky said that a partial second story addition that would be located so that it did not impact neighbors could possibly be approved. Boardmember Weller said that he understood the need for more space in these relatively small houses to accommodate a family, but this would be a radical change to the neighborhood and he would be open to variances that would permit construction in setbacks. Chair Chong noted that other recent additions on Hawthorne Drive had been one-story projects to avoid these problems. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Weller) to continue the application for 680 Hawthorne Drive to the September 2, 2010 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 3. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Toy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two- family exception. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two-family dwelling on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. The proposed structure would have one level of living space and an overall height of 21 feet, 5114 inches. The dwelling would include a great room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, one additional bedroom and bathroom and a pantry/laundry room. The proposed dwelling would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,509 square feet to 3,495 square feet (30.1 of the lot, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The proposed 1,180 square foot dwelling would increase the floor area on the site to 3,115 square feet, which is 13 square feet less than the 3,128 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Section 16- 21.030 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance requires that a detached two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone obtain a detached two-family dwelling exception. Planning Manager Watrous noted two typographic errors in the Staff Report. First, the surname of the applicant should be "Norris" and not "Harris." Second, the top of page 9 should read " ...insufficient evidence to support the exception" instead of"... sufficient evidence to support the exception." Roger Hartley, designer, described the project as a modest proposal for a 2-bedroom 2-bath house, with an efficient design with no hallways and little storage. He said that they considered attaching the dwelling to the existing building, but there were several impediments to doing that. He said that the existing landscaping on the downhill side is quite mature and large and much of it would need to be removed. He said that the existing house is barely visible currently from Vista Del Mar, and so they chose to maintain landscaping and move the proposed structure as far away as possible, which would also provide usable yard space for both properties. Mr. Hartley disputed several items in the staff report. He stated that there are four legal parking spaces on the property, along with two additional spaces. He stated that the parking would not become any less convenient by building the second unit. He did not believe that neighbors would be negatively impacted and that there would be more of an impact on homes above the site if the second dwelling was moved uphill. He said that they reduced the height of the building by three feet to reduce the impact on the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/1510 EXHIBIT NO. neighbor above. He presented photographs showing the original location of the story poles and the new location when they moved the structure down. He disagreed that the neighbors have a slot view that would be affected by the project as a hedge already blocks those views. He stated that it would be very difficult to attach the second unit to the existing building because it would seriously impact the floor plan of the existing building, cutting off light and access to the lower floor. He said that the existing house is in poop condition and adapting that lower floor would require massive floor plan changes and trigger a lot of additional construction. He did not want to render the existing house a teardown which could require moving a new house down the hill. He said that he studied this thoroughly and tried a number of different ways of locating the structure on the property. He stated that the existing second unit on the site was immaterial and does not address the hardship question. He felt that there would be no additional impact on parking because there are already two families living on the property. He disagreed that it would be a preferable solution to move the structure uphill and attach it to the existing structure. He believed that the project meets all of the necessary criteria, would have no view impact, have enough parking, and there would be practical difficulties with attaching the structure to the existing house. He said that they are proposing two very small buildings that are in keeping with the neighborhood and would keep the landscaping in place to provide screening, which would change if the buildings were attached. William Norris, owner, said that the purpose of the proposed dwelling is to provide a home for his oldest daughter and family. He expressed concern that the staff has report does not mention the uphill home at 2356 Spanish Trail. He said that that is the only home that would have a primary view of the proposed dwelling, while the other homes have side views of the project. He said that the proposed home would be small and he was offended seeing the words "mass" and "bulk" pertaining to this home. He wag concerned that a supporting letter from the owner of 2356 Spanish Trail was not mentioned in the staff report. He said that they had trimmed a tree on their property that blocked a view of Angel Island for a neighbor and agreed to prune another tree to provide a neighbor with an East Bay view. He said that the property has a three car garage and two adjacent spots that provide enough parking, and he felt that the fact that they have more off-street parking than most people in the neighborhood was significant. He said that they never park their cars on Vista Del Mar. He felt that young people today cannot afford to live in Tiburon and he thought the Town should be pleased that he wants to build a one-level two bedroom home that would comply with the zoning standards. The public hearing was opened. Eugene Aureguy said that he owns a duplex on Paradise Drive that also fronts on Vista Del Mar. He said that he fought for years for two separate dwellings and everyone in the neighborhood was against it, but he felt that his neighbors would now agree that it was good planning and improved the neighborhood. He said that the existing garage structure is unattractive and adds nothing to the neighborhood, while a very attractive house in that location would enhance the value of his own and the neighbors' properties. He has been through many meetings and has seen many objections in his time as a developer and felt that this would be a very attractive house and would not impact views or traffic. He suggested that the old garage be demolished and incorporated within the building. Terry Schwakopf said that she has never objected to anything in Tiburon, but no one approached her to try to discuss this project or show her options. She said that Vista Del Mar is very narrow and compact. When viewing the story poles, she said that she would be quite concerned with the houses on either side. She felt that the house would be very visible and have a large footprint. She thought it would seem possible to design an attached second home. Gary Glover said that it was refreshing to see a proposal without variances that would be in scale with their neighborhood. He felt that a detached second unit would be far better than a large duplex. He said TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 EXHIBIT N0. 7/15!10 that the size of this lot could easily accommodate more cars than is proposed. He thought that the scale and aesthetics of the design were in keeping with the neighborhood. Robin Moore agreed with Ms. Schwakopf s comments. She said that her house is across the street from the lower portion of the proposed structure. She stated that parking has always been an issue and that she has five parking spaces, but people always park on her property, even without an additional home on the street. She said that the proposed home would have the same floor area as her house. She thought that the proposed structure would be way too big for the neighborhood. Teri Glover said that only one car can fit down Spanish Trail and the parking is terrible in the area because the roads are very narrow. She said that the proposed house would be smaller than any house on the whole block of Spanish Trail and surrounding streets. She stated that the houses next to this are huge and it did not seem fair that one cannot build on one's own property even when the codes are met. Celia DeMartini represented Ann DeMartini and said that her concerns were to preserve her mother's property value. She said that if her mother's tenant feels that their privacy is impacted, then that would reduce their ability to rent that unit. She did not think that detached units were the way to go on these streets. Wally Quinn said that he lives in a legal duplex about 30 feet from the applicant's property. He did not believe that the exception should be granted for this property. He stated that one of the garage spaces is being used to store a boat. He said that the applicants' five cars are being spread throughout the neighborhood, and he believed that staff did an excellent job reviewing this application. Shelley Brown said that she lives directly west of the applicant's property. She opposed the project due to the mass and bulk, as well as privacy issues and view impediments. She said that as she walks up the front stairs of her home the story poles indicate a massive building that would look right into her front yard and onto her deck, which she uses often. She values living on the lane, including the open feeling and views, and the proposed house would make her feel very claustrophobic and uncomfortable. David Kirchhoff said that he cannot see the proposed house, but he represents Mr. Wittingham, and questioned and confirmed that the Board received his letter. Mr. Kirchhoff said that he is a realtor and he represented the subject property when the Norris's purchased it. He said that one of the reasons the Norris's were selected as buyers was that they said that they would not tear down the house. He said that other prospective owners wanted to tear down the house and build a 3,200 square foot house in its place. He said that a new house would have to be moved downhill to conform with the setbacks, which could affect Mr. Wittingham's property. Mr. Kirchhoff asked why Mr. Wittingham's house was excluded from the analysis. Planning Manager Watrous said it was never brought to their attention until after the report had been prepared, and the letter was delivered with the report as late mail to the Design Review Board and the Board has read it. Mr. Kirchhoff said that Mr. Wittingham would like his house to be included in the evaluation of this project. Boardmember Weller said the Board cannot work with hypothetical situations, and if another proposal were presented for consideration that included a structure that would affect his house, then the Board would welcome that discussion. Mr. Kirchhoff said that Mr. Wittingham is very much in favor of the detached structure because an attached structure would have a significant impact on his property. Sue Zimmerman said that she lives in a duplex on Paradise Drive at Vista Del Mar and was asked to help draft the detached two-family dwelling ordinance. She said that the vision for the R-2 zone was different than for the R-1 zone and used impromptu models to demonstrate the differences in mass and bulk TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7 7/15/10 EXHIBIT NO. between two detached homes and one attached duplex. She said that it would be visually dense to have two detached structures as opposed to having one attached structure with two units. She noted that the zoning ordinance has been revised to establish criteria for detached units in the R-2 zone and she did not feel that this is a lot that qualifies to have two structures because it does meet these criteria. She hoped that the Board would protect the R-2 zone and deny the project. She also urged the Board to look at this application as a whole, noting that the property already has a shed and garage and they are now asking for another structure on the lot. Joy Norris said that she loves the massive magnolia tree in the yard, and she did not want to remove it to construct an attached duplex. She that that there have only been five cars on the site recently because they have not yet had time to sell one that they recently replaced. Mr. Hartley said that it would be a poor solution to try to create an attached structure, as there are numerous design impediments to try to attach the second unit to the existing home. Boardmember Kricensky asked how the parking is conforming. Mr. Hartley answered that four parking spaces are available in the garage. Boardmember Kricensky said the space is not big enough to park cars if the doors of the garage are closed. Mr. Hartley said the 18 foot depth was measured with the doors opened. Planning Manager Watrous noted that a suggested condition of approval would require the applicant to remove the garage doors to make those adequate parking spaces. Mr. Norris said that there is a huge stone wall with beams inside the garage and he would not like to tear that down, but he was willing to remove the doors. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Weller said that when he visited the site it became clear that this house is being built on Vista Del Mar and not on Spanish Trail. He said that the house would affect other homes on Vista Del Mar but not any homes on Spanish Trail. He said that he could not conclude that preservation of a magnolia tree would justify the radical change to the area that would result from this plan. He objected to the overhang of the porch which would extend the view impediment on the neighbors. He stated that the effect on people is more important than preservation of existing landscaping. He agrees with staff s analysis that the application has not met the criteria that the ordinance requires for a detached two-family dwelling exception. He said that the intent of the ordinance was to discourage building two separate structures. However, he said that would not necessarily be against two separate structures on this site, but this particular application does not meet the criteria.. Vice-Chair Tollini agreed with Boardmember Weller. He noted that the procedure for a detached two- family dwelling exception sets up a rigorous set of hurdles and he felt that the project as proposed clearly does not meet two of the five criteria. He said that the project could not demonstrate the practical difficulty of attaching two units on the site or the superiority of the detached unit project design, nor could the project demonstrate that the design would reduce impacts on the neighbors. He concluded that the project therefore fails based on the zoning criteria alone. He said that he also did not necessarily have a problem with a detached unit on this site. He felt that parking may also be an issue. He said that the proposed unit would be very high with a vaulted roof and he could not say that this detached house would have less impact than an attached unit. He said that he has seen larger homes with less visual impact than the proposed dwelling. Boardmember Kricensky said that the physical conditions of the site include an existing residence and the whole upper part of the lot is very difficult to build upon. He stated that a future home on the site would likely be pulled down the hill, but would not be much larger than t he existing house on the site. He said that he could rationalize the zoning requirements either way. He said that the impact of the second house TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/15/10 EXHIBIT N0. would be greater than the existing house. He said that a more cottage-style house that was set further back, which also dealt with the parking issues, might be easier to consider. He said that a detached second unit might work on this site, but would likely have more impact on the homes on Vista Del Mar. Chair Chong said if one were starting with a blank slate without an existing house, the units would be built in the center of the lot. He agreed with Boardmember Kricensky that the criteria could be rationalized either way. He liked the design of the house, although there was room for improvement regarding its height. He would like to see the applicant remove the wall in the garage so there are not so many structures on the lot. He agreed that the home at 2356 Spanish Trail was the most potentially impacted, but felt that the homes on either side of the property would have only minor view impacts. Boardmember Weller said that the ordinance is pretty clearly against the idea of two detached residences. However, the thought that if the proposed structure was moved back to lessen the impact on the Vista Del Mar neighbors and offered a better parking solution, the project might work. He did not think that the current proposal would allow him to conclude that the requirements have been met. Vice-Chair Tollini agreed that a "cottage'" design might work and agreed that the proposed house would have more mass than the existing house on the site. Chair Chong said that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. Vice-Chair Tollini said that an improved parking solution would also be necessary, possibly combining the parking structure with the proposed dwelling. Boardmember Kricensky said that pulling the house back would better align the structure with other homes on Vista Del Mar. He said that, as proposed, the house has too much volume and that a smaller house would work better. He said that he would like to see the applicant look into providing some parking on the Spanish Trail side of the property. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kricensky) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the September 2, 2010 meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #10 OF THE 7/1/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2010 meeting as written. Vote: 4-0. F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 EXHIBIT NO. 9 7/15/10 MINUTES #16 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 2010 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Tollini. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Emberson and Weller Absent: Vice-Chair Kricensky and Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted the item for 680 Hawthorne Drive was continued to the November 4, 2010, meeting. He reminded the Board that the joint Town Council/Planning Commission/Design Review Board workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 9, 2010, and an agenda would be sent out within the next few weeks. He noted that there are no items currently scheduled for the October 21, 2010, Design Review Board meeting which may be canceled. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two- family dwelling exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site, along with a new two-car garage and a new parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line into the Spanish Trail right-of-way, which would not comply with the 15 foot minimum front yard setback in the R-2 zone. APN: 059-201-32 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 1 U 10/7/10 EXHIBIT NO. Roger Hartley, designer, said that the Board previously identified a number of issues regarding the project and he had with the owners and completed a redesign addressing those issues. He stated that the size of the project and its proximity to the street had been reduced by moving the building back approximately 30 feet. He said that the roof had moved back and would be approximately 2 feet lower than the previous proposal. He said that the roofline was lowered by 1 foot, one of the dormers on the left side had been removed and a portion of the overhanging porch roof had been removed. He stated that the porch had been narrowed by 30%. He described how they had addressed the parking issue by providing a parking deck on Spanish Trail and a two-car garage below on Vista Del Mar. He noted that the Board felt that the existing garage was inadequate, so they opted to rebuild the garage so that it would be a full depth, two-car garage. He said that the roof of the garage would be flat with a hedge around the top so that views on neighboring sides will look down on landscaping and lawn rather than a roof. He said that the parking deck on Spanish Trail would allow more convenient parking for the main house and the garage below would provide two spaces for the second house. Mr. Hartley disagreed with Staff regarding the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception and he thought that an attached duplex would be a bad architectural design. He said that the narrow shape of the lot would create a long alleyway on the sides of the building and adding the bulk of a second unit to the existing house would have a negative effect on the property immediately above. He thought that the proposed project location was a natural place to build and said that they have made accommodations to drop the height of the structure to avoid impacting that neighbor's views. Mr. Hartley stated that they would excavate 4 feet to reduce the height of the structure, but if they had to move the structure up the hill to attach it to the house, they would have to excavate an 8-foot basement. He stated that moving the structure up the hill would block the view from the main house. He felt that the only reasonable solution was a second unit down the hill along with providing parking for each structure and landscaping to screen between the two. He said that the net effect would appear as two small cottage- like houses that would be in keeping with the style of Old Tiburon. The public hearing was opened. Robin Moore stated that she has lived in this neighborhood for 57 years and she likes the small houses and quiet street. She said that she was afraid that the look and feel of the neighborhood would be changed through completion of projects such as the one proposed for this property. J.J. Wintersteen said that he was concerned when the story poles went up because the visual impact from Vista Del Mar Lane would be quite substantial. He felt that the two separate structures would feel like San Francisco and that residents and pedestrians would be unable to enjoy the open space between the structures. He said that Vista Del Mar Lane is very small and the project would make the street into a back alley for driveways and carports. He said that he would like to see one structure instead of separating the proposed house and garage, with more excavation, or he would like the existing garage to be removed. Terry Schwakopf opposed the project for the reasons stated in her letter. She felt that the project was too dense and she did not want to see a garage up to the edge of Vista Del Mar Lane. She stated that this project does not meet the criteria for a detached unit, as there is no physical impediment that renders the attached unit impossible. She asked for a clear decision as to whether this project meets the exception before any discussion of the project design is undertaken. She said that no one objects to the Norris' improving their property and they are only discussing their concerns with the detached units-and this specific project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 EXHIBIT NO. 1 C) 10/7/10 Richard Wodehouse said that he lives above the property, and his property is the only one whose views would be affected by the project. He did not feel that the building should be built next to the existing house because it would impact his view and also take away any privacy and landscaping between his house and the new structure if it were moved up against the main house. Celia DeMartini, representing her mother Ann DeMartini, said that she owns and manages real estate and she was concerned that this project would affect her mother's property value, as the views of the Golden Gate in this area account for much of the property value. If built, she said that the two units would be smaller than most others in Tiburon and would exacerbate the visual density of the Vista Del Mar Lane neighborhood. She cited affected blockage of views from her mother's home and privacy issues involving the front deck and the new roof deck. She said that planting of screening vegetation on the Norris' property would block her mother's rental unit's views. She did not understand why the applicant was not building a single structure duplex. She noted that the main building already contains a duplex, and she felt that a single structure would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Shelley Brown said that she felt that there was no justification for granting an exception for a detached dwelling unit. She stated that at the previous meeting the Board asked the applicant to do three things, and instead the applicant had shrunk the house by less than 5%, had not moved the house back in line with the neighbors, and had created a new garage that would affect her view. She said that the parking deck on Spanish Trail would remove existing screening and look into her backyard. As a resident of Tiburon she said that she felt fortunate to have the DRB in place to protect property values and she asked for denial of the project. Gary Glover said that if he did not want to see neighbors he would not choose to live in Tiburon. He noted that the only variance requested was for the parking deck and he noted that his neighbors have carports on Spanish Trail. He felt that if people did not like the underlying zoning where they live, then they should move. Wally Quinn said that this should be a two-part application, with one part for the detached two-family dwelling exception and the other part for the design of the structure. He said that Staff does not support a detached two-family dwelling. If possible, he asked for a vote on the findings for the requested exception before the Board moves on to the design aspect of the application. He stated that the new garage would be 6 feet further out than it was before, which meani that instead of moving the structures up the hill, the buildings had been moved down the hill. He proposed placing the garage underneath the new house and moving the structure up the hill or eliminating the garage and creating an open car pad for 3 cars. He presented a sketch of how a second unit could be attached to the existing building, with a flat roof and stepped down the hill in accordance with the Hillside Guidelines. He requested that the Board deny the project and ask that the applicant return with an attached structure that all of the neighbors could support. David Kirchhoff said that he represents the Wittinghams whose views would be affected by the project and noted that they expressed appreciation to the Board for their suggestions at the last meeting. He said that the changes made to the project addressed their concerns and that they feel that the two structures would better fit the neighborhood and would not block the views. He said that a single duplex building would impose on their privacy and block views. Eugene Aureguy said that he owns the property directly across from the applicant which has been developed with two detached dwelling units. He said that when he went through the design review process the Board thought two smaller structures were more fitting for the neighborhood. He said that once the buildings were finished, Mr. Quinn came by and complimented the project. Mr. Quinn objected and said that he had never complimented Mr. Aureguy's project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 ` b 10/7/10 EXHIBIT NO. Mr. Aureguy continued, stating that the garage would be an improvement and this new project would enhance the neighborhood. He said that this would take traffic off of Vista Del Mar and put it on Spanish Trail. He noted that not many lots have access to two streets, and this situation should be taken advantage of when it exists. He thought that it made no sense to attach another unit to the older existing building. Bill Norris, applicant, said that having two small homes made more sense than an ugly attachment to the older main home. He felt that having parking both up above and below was good planning and a good design. He said that the same people opposing his project also opposed Mr. Aureguy's project, but he felt that that project was well done and preserved the character desired by the neighborhood. He said that Ms. DeMartini's value would likely go up as a result of this project and the project would not affect her view. He said that Ms. Brown does not have a primary view across the site. He stated that the only primary view across the property is from Mr. Wodehouse's home, and he had spoken in support of the project. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Weller said that this is a difficult project. He said that there were three possibilities: 1) nothing gets built, 2) the proposed two structures get built, or 3) an attached solution is built. He said that all of these options would result in someone unhappy with the result. He said that he would like to come up with a solution that everyone can live with. He stated that the property owner has the right to develop the property under the requirements of the R-2 zone and the Board is charged with determining whether the conditions exist to grant the exception. He did not think that physical conditions exist that would prevent building an attached unit to the existing structure. He agreed that the idea of keeping smaller units in the community is preferable, but was having trouble with the requirement that the superiority of a detached unit was "clearly demonstrated." He said that it was difficult to state that an attached second unit was clearly inferior when the existing building on the site has historically included an attached second unit. Boardmember Emberson said that she had visited almost every property in the area. She could see that there could be a substantial view impact on the property up above if the second unit was pushed back against the existing house. She said that an attached unit would also result in a very long driveway to the garage, which she felt would be visually unpleasant. She characterized the project as a handsome cottage design. She stated that there are physical conditions on the lot that render a true duplex impractical, as the lot is very narrow at the location of the existing building. She said that it would be difficult to make the existing downstairs floor area livable with another unit attached to the building. She felt that two detached units could reduce impacts rather than exacerbate them. She noted that the lot is wider toward the bottom and that that area would be more appropriate as a building site. She stated that only one window at Ms. DeMartini's unit faces the site, with most of that home's views away from the site. She said that she liked the lowered roofline and the portion of the proposed residence that would be stepped back on the site. Chair Tollini said that he visited the site twice and felt that he was looking at essentially the same application as last time. He felt that the visual impact was disproportionately huge for a relatively modest sized second unit. He said that the height of the structure makes it look like another house on a fully developed lot, creating the appearance of two tiny lots with massive houses on them. He had hoped to see a fairly significant redesign of the project and that is not what happened. He said that this project was not merely about finding the best way to build a second unit, but to look at the general impact on the neighborhood. He said that for almost every home in the vicinity two structures have more of an impact than a single structure. He does not see that the existing house makes having an attached unit impractical, although it might be less desirable. He noted that there are five criteria to be reviewed for a detached two- family dwelling exception and he still had problems with two of them. From a planning standpoint, he did TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/7i10 EXHIBIT NO. y 4 not see how the project demonstrated the superiority of detached dwellings. He stated that the Town set a high threshold for when there can be a detached second unit, and he felt that this situation did not meet those criteria. He stated that he was not necessarily against detached units, but the project as designed did not meet the necessary criteria and an acceptable design would start with a second unit that has a lot less impact. Boardmember Weller agreed with Chair Tollini that this project would, in effect, split this lot in two. He said that the ordinance was designed to discourage two separate houses on an R-2 lot. One of the big problems he had with the design was the separate structure for a garage which would also have a roof deck. He said that it would be helpful to move the garage under the structure so that it would not sit almost directly on the street and create a visual block that does not exist anywhere else on Vista Del Mar. He said that there were also other ways to lessen the visual bulk of the project, including flattening the roof further. He agreed with Chair Tollini that this application did not represent enough of a change from the previous design one to convince him to approve it. Chair Tollini said there may be ways of designing the garage so it is less impactful, including reducing the building width and adding articulation to the project design. He said that this is an unusual enough lot that there could be ways to make the argument that a revised project design satisfies the criteria for the exception. Boardmember Emberson disagreed and said that she would not want to look up at an extremely long driveway. She said that there would not be space for many windows on the sides of the existing' house where the current second unit is situated. She agreed that the proposed unit could be smaller and she did not like the sod deck on top of the garage. She thought that if the garage were moved, the neighbors would not be as concerned with the impact. Chair Tollini questioned whether a continuance would be appropriate. Planning Manager Watrous said continuance is a possibility, but Staff would only recommend a continuance if the Board felt that it would be possible to make the findings for the detached two-family exception. If the Board felt that there was a possibility of a redesigned detached second unit that met the required criteria and the applicant agreed to make such substantial changes, then a continuance would be appropriate. Otherwise, he suggested that the Board should direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. Chair Tollini said he did not think that the project as designed could meet the findings for the second and third exception criteria. Boardmember Weller said if the structure could be moved back and reduced, then he could support the criteria that the detached unit would demonstrate site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits. Chair Tollini suggested moving the garage away from Vista Del Mar and noted that there would be more traffic on Spanish Trail due to the proposed parking deck. Planning Manager Watrous summarized the DRB's suggestions as moving the house up the hill, making it substantially visually smaller, and tucking the parking underneath the house itself. Chair Tollini said that he was open to keeping the parking below but bring ing it closer into the building t7l footprint so that it would not appear as such a big block. He said that he would like to see the building design compressed so that it would look more like a consolidated unit, thereby mitigating the visual impact. Boardmember Weller said he did not want to tell the applicant how to redesign the project, but instead instruct the applicant to create a smaller overall building envelope and bring the structure together. He said that he would like to see the garage pushed back so that it would not be right on the street. Planning Manager Watrous asked the applicant if he was willing to accept a continuance to redesign the application. Mr. Hartley said yes, and asked for clarification from the Board regarding stacking the house TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 l j 10/7/10 EXHIBIT N0. on top of the garage, which he said would be inconsistent with the Hillside Guidelines. Chair Tollini said there is a balance that could be struck with stepping the house. Mr. Hartley suggested removing the garage altogether. All of the Boardmembers agreed that this could make the project more appealing. Boardmember Emberson said the lot is very unique and putting a rectangle on it does not work. She would like to see the structure articulated and stacked, and this would help the neighbors. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Emberson) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the September 2, 2010 meeting. Vote: 3-0. 2. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a larger master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest suite for the existing dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18 CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 4, 2010 E. NEW BUSINESS 3. 96 SUGARLOAF DRIVE; File No. 21016; Capucine & Andrew Hoybach, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 26 square foot addition to the master bedroom to create a larger bathroom area. As the minimum side yard setback in the RO-2 zone is fifteen feet (15'), a variance is required in order to construct the addition within the side yard setback a distance of one foot (1'), for a reduced side yard setback of fourteen feet (14'). APN: 058-281-13 The applicant is requesting to construct a minor addition with a variance for reduced side yard setback on property located at 96 Sugarloaf Drive. Currently the property is improved with a single-family dwelling. The proposal would expand the master bathroom at the upper level only. The proposed structure would result in a lot coverage of 2,332.5 square feet (12.4%) which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The proposed structure would result in a gross floor area of 3,375 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted floor area ratio for a property of this size (3,879.3 sq. ft.). The proposed minor addition (26 sq. ft.) would encroach into the right side yard setback a distance of one foot (1'), for a reduced side yard setback of fourteen feet (14') in lieu of the minimum fifteen feet (15') required. Therefore, a variance for reduced side yard setback has been requested. Kourash Baradaran, architect, said that they were granted planning approval for an addition and remodel of an existing house. After they were granted that approval, they looked at the master bath addition more closely and it felt very narrow and crammed. He said gaining the extra 12 inches would make a huge impact on the master bathroom. He said that they appreciate the side yard setback limitations, but noted that there is a 15 foot or wider easement dedicated to the lot immediately outside the property line which is used for the driveway in between the addition and the neighboring home, which would create a distance of over 30 feet to the neighbor. Andrew Hoybach, owner, said that his lot was subdivided in order to provide a driveway to the homes behind it. He thought that the strict application of the setback ordinance on his lot would create a hardship. TIBURON D.K.B. MINUTES #17 6 10/7/10 EXHIBIT N0. 16 There were no public comments. Boardmember Emberson said that she visited the site and noted that there is a house across the street that has had similar modifications, which she believed was the correct way to design the increase floor area. She was glad that there were no objections from neighbors. Boardmember Weller agreed and said that this was a sensitive application. He had no objections to the proposal and thought that it was consistent with the neighborhood. Boardmember Chong said that it was nice to see a well-done one-story addition in this neighborhood. Vice-Chair Kricensky agreed with the other boardmembers that this was a modest, well-done proposal. Although the roof would rise a little, he felt that this was necessary for the modifications of the house and did not affect any of the neighbors. Chair Tollini agreed and said that the project was an easy one to get behind because it was modest and there were no objections from neighbors. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Weller) that the request for 12 Apollo Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, and the approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0. , E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #17 OF THE 10/7/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Weller) to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2010 meeting as written. Vote: 3-0-2 (Kricensky and Chong abstained). F. OLD BUSINESS 1. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two- family exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site, along with a new two-car garage and a new parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line into the Spanish Trail right-of-way, which would not comply with the 15 foot minimum front yard setback in the R-2 zone. APN: 059-201-32 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two-family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11!4!10 EXHIBIT N0. might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the project that included the following changes that were reviewed by the Design Review Board at the October 7, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors again objected to the proposed project and felt that the application would be inconsistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units and incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that, as designed, the project did not meet the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception. The Board suggested that the proposed dwelling needed to be better articulated, possibly stepped into the hillside and/or moved uphill on the site. The applicant proposed eliminating the garage structure on Vista Del Mar and the Board felt that that would help reduce the visual mass of the project. The application was again continued to allow the applicant time to further redesign the project. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The roof of the front porch had been removed from the proposed second dwelling and the entry stairway leading up from Vista Del Mar has been relocated to the eastern side. The previously proposed two-car garage along Vista Del Mar had been eliminated and replaced with a two-car parking pad. With the exception of the aforementioned modifications, the floor area, height and location of the dwelling on the site remain unchanged. The new two-car parking deck was still proposed to be constructed within the street right-of-way at the front of the site accessed from Spanish Trail. Chair Tollini requested the applicant and the public limit comments to what had changed since the last meeting. He also noted that there was an argument after the October 7"' meeting, and requested the discussion remain civil tonight. Roger Hartley, designer, said he hoped the Board was willing to consider the detached unit because of the size of the structure that would be needed to make it an attached unit. He said that they have previously moved the building four feet into the hillside and now have removed a portion of the roof structure of the porch area and the previously proposed garage structure. He stated that removing the existing garage represented a 30% reduction of mass compared to the previous proposals. He said that by removing the parking structure and leaving it as an existing flat space with a wall behind it, they had essentially moved the project up the hill approximately 30 feet. He *stated that eliminating the porch roof'had the effect of moving the structure another nine feet up the hill. He said that the corner of the building would now be in line with neighboring houses. Boardmember Emberson asked what substantive changes had been made to the structure besides the removal of the garage, as the only change she saw was the removal of the roof over the porch. Mr. Hartley said that they had not changed the floor plan and cannot do much more unless they change the building to a one-bedroom cottage. The public hearing was opened. Jerome Bernal said that he lives next-door to the site and could empathize with the applicants because his house was the most recent addition in the neighborhood. He said that when he did his remodel, he had to dig into the hillside to protect privacy of neighbors and safety in the neighborhood. He thought that the building would be extremely tall and he hoped that the Board would be consistent with the decisions of previous Boards. He said that Spanish Trail is a very narrow street and he sees cars constantly having to back up to get out of the way of traffic going the other way. He would like to see the character of Old Tiburon retained. He felt that adding a detached unit would add density to an already dense area. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 I i 4 11/4/10 EXHIBIT NO. t 1 Richard Wodehouse said that he was concerned with the criteria the Board needed to evaluate to approve the exception for the detached building. He said that he is a builder and knows the dangers of setting a precedent for an exception. He said that the closer the new building moves to the existing house, the more it would impact his own house. He said that right now he views mostly vegetation, but if the house is moved up the hill it would block part of his view of the bay and possibly affect his privacy. He said that his living room is in an unusual location and the project would impact him more than the neighbors whose back yards are impacted by the project. Dennis Schwakopf referred to the staff report and said that he agreed with its conclusions. Shelley Brown said that she also agreed with the last three staff reports that this project should be denied and the exception not be granted. Celia DeMartini, representing Ann DeMartini, said that she also agreed with the staff report and did not think that the exception should be granted. She did not believe that the building had been moved back enough to be truly in line with her mother's building. Robin Moore said she concurred wholeheartedly with the staff report. Phil Bartlett said he has been on review boards like the DRB and he knows how to look at story poles and drawings. He described the elevation changes on the site and felt that where there is this much of a change and a through lot with two street frontages, there was no other choice but to build two separate houses. He characterized the 1,100 square foot structure as a very small house and felt that attaching a second unit to the existing house would create a much larger structure and impact views and privacy more. He said that the Aureguy project is right across the street from him and is very similar to this project, and he felt that it is very beautiful. Sue Zimmerman said that she completed a study of 20 homes in the area including 11 duplexes. She was concerned about the precedent that would be created by allowing the building of the detached dwelling. She stated that several of the duplexes are in need of being torn down and if those are replaced by detached homes there would be up 9 lots so developed in the area. She stated that the Board must be absolutely truthful to the findings to avoid this change in the neighborhood, asked not to set a precedent for future, similar requests, and believed the problem to be one of neighborhood character. Boardmember Emberson asked Ms. Zimmerman if she would approve of the project if the addition was attached, and Ms. Zimmerman said she would support the project if it were attached to the existing building. Gene Aureguy said that the ordinance allows two buildings and good planning dictates that use of the land. He said that it does not make sense to attach the building to the existing structure the project as proposed would add to the value of all of the properties in the neighborhood. He said that his buildings were approved by the DRB and the Town Council because it was seen as more beneficial to build two buildings instead of adding to the existing one. He felt that small building design was more in line with the texture of the Old Tiburon neighborhood. Bill Norris, applicant, said that this has been a long process and he thought that the project had come a long way and they have addressed the issues that concerned staff. He said that they would construct an off-street parking deck requiring a variance, but he thought that it would help Spanish Trail to have another off-street parking area. He said that they had lowered the roof and reduced the project by 900 square feet. He stated that he has experience restoring older homes and has gone before Boards such as the DRB in other communities and that all of his previous projects increased neighbors' property values TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 1 11/4/10 EXHIBIT NO. l immensely. He stated that the new 1,100 square foot cottage would be much better to look at from neighboring properties than his older garage. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Emberson said she did not think the question was whether the cottage was a nice design, but whether the Board can make the criteria to grant the exception for two separate units. She said that the lot is an adequate size to support two separate units. She believed that there are physical conditions on the lot that make it difficult to attach the unit to the older house, because an attached unit would feel like a bunker with hills on either side of it. She felt that it would be impractical to place a second unit next to the existing house at the narrowest part of the lot. She hoped that the house would not be so rectangular and could somehow be more articulated so that there would be less mass visible at the street level. She said that the current design did not address the prior direction of the Board to lessen the visual mass of the house. She thought that it was possible to meet the criteria for two separate detached units, but she was unsure whether the proposed unit was the right detached unit for this lot. Boardmember Weller said that he could not find that there was a practical difficulty for attaching a second unit, but he thought that the applicant could demonstrate the site planning superiority of the detached dwelling unit. He understood the importance of precedent, but the narrowness of the lot and the fact that it spans two streets is a different circumstance than some other lot with access from only one street. He did not think that this would set a precedent for lots that do not span two streets. He noted that the Board did not have an alternative design for an attached unit and he could only speculate as 'to what might be possible with a one structure solution. He said that an attached unit might affect views somewhat for the uphill neighbor, but added that simply looking at a rooftop was not the end of the world. He disagreed with Boardmember Emberson that nothing had been done to change the proposal since the last meeting. He commended the applicant for having heard what the DRB said regarding the mass and bulk and eliminating the garage. He said that the Board also suggested that moving the structure back would mitigate the effects on the neighbors and he was disappointed this was not done. He said that he could not conclude that two detached units would reduce visual impacts compared to two attached units and he could not support this particular proposal. Vice-Chair Kricensky said there were a series of individual issues to be addressed. One was analyzing the site with existing residences around it and how they would be impacted by the structufes. Another was the design of the structure, and another was the parking issue. He said that there are physical conditions existing on the lot that make it impractical or difficult to build an attached unit, as there would be no access or windows for the existing lower floor of the house. He said that the views of the neighbors on both sides create a whole matrix of influences that create the potential for the site to be a candidate for two buildings. He felt that if the existing house was demolished, a new structure likely would be built on the lower portion of the lot. However, he felt that the applicant had not clearly demonstrated to the Boardmembers or the neighbors of the property what would happen with alternative attached building designs that could appease some of the neighbors. He said that the site lends itself to two units, but he said he could not approve it without a clear argument showing why it does not work to connect the units. Boardmember Chong suggested looking at the exception first before looking at the project design. If the lot was a blank slate and they were comparing two dwellings versus one, he felt that there were three places where a dwelling could be placed. One would be down by the garage which would create a large street presence, a second would be a house squeezed into the existing residence, and a third would be somewhere in the center. He stated that the uphill neighbor would be most impacted by far b_y any change to this lot which could sit directly in that neighbor's view of the Golden Gate Bridge. In comparing the three single-structure options to the two-structure option, he thought that the two-structure option made sense and would impact neighbors the least. He said that the street presence of the project improved TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11i4/10 EXHIBIT NO. without the garage. He liked the porch roof of the cottage, but he understood that some compromises needed to be made. He felt that two structures seemed appropriate for this lot and that he could find reasons for each of the criteria to support the exception. Chair Tollini said that the parking deck on Spanish Trail was a good solution for the property. He thought that removing the garage was a significant positive step. However, he said that he had the same issue with the project as before, which was seeing way too much house on a site where two structures are discouraged by the Town's ordinance. He noted that the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception talk about visual impacts and not just view impacts. He said that the proposed house still appears to be very wide and tall and he did not understand why it had to look this big for a 1,100 square foot house. He stated that there still needed to be a substantial redesign of the house to make it less impactful. He agreed with Vice-Chair Kricensky about the potential for a second detached unit on the property. He said that he understood the potential of setting a precedent, but felt that this type of project could be permitted on difficult lots in the neighborhood. Boardmember Emberson said that the 1,100 square foot building looked larger because of its rectangle shape. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that removing the porch cover actually increased the mass of the building and a more stepped project design would look more like a cottage when viewed from the street. He emphasized that the applicant needed to demonstrate why an attached second unit would not work. He said that if the applicant successfully demonstrated that then the Board could look at the design 'of the second unit. Boardmember Emberson pointed out it is difficult for the applicant to design a house and show how it does not work. Vice-Chair Kricensky noted that it was common to request an applicant to prepare alternative project designs. Boardmember Weller said it is unfortunate but the ordinance requires the Board to snake it difficult for the applicant and the Board is compelled to request information on why it would be difficult to build the attached unit. Boardmember Chong said that he would rather see a house of this style in that area than a more modern design, which could result in another set of issues brought up by neighbors that would need to be addressed. Chair Tollini stated that he would not want to see a tiny stucco house on this lot, but the house design needed to reflect the compromise necessary to build on this site. As much as he liked the style of the house in Old Tiburon, he felt that it did not work for this particular site. He noted that the last lot in the neighborhood is always the most difficult to be built upon. Chair Tollini said that the Board appeared to be generally in consensus that it was possible to approve two separate dwellings on this site in terms of the ordinance requirements. Boardmember Emberson agreed that the project met the criteria for two detached homes. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that he could potentially support two structures but the applicant needed to demonstrate the difficulty of an attached structure. Boardmember Weller referred to the criteria which states that the applicant must demonstrate why an attached unit will not work and he said that the Board had not received sufficient information in order to draw such a conclusion. Chair Tollini summarized that the Board was asking for additional information about an attached unit at the next meeting, as well as a redesign of the unit so that it would appear visually smaller. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 I q 11!4/10 EXHIBIT N0. Chair Tollini said that he would be in favor of restoring the porch roof because it would reduce the visual mass of the unit. Boardmember Weller said that the applicant needed to be cognizant of the neighbors who objected to the extension of that faeade. Chair Tollini said he would like to see a reworking of the height and width seen from the street and he would strongly encourage moving the footprint of the building. Planning Manager Watrous suggested having the applicant come forward to state whether they understood the request. He also noted this was the last chance to amend the project and it sounded like some substantial changes need to be made in order to make that successful. Mr. Hartley stated that he understood what the Board was requesting, but he needed some time to discuss whether they are willing to do it with the applicant. He said that the Board appeared to be asking for a different house, but his client likes this house. He was concerned about Vice-Chair Kricensky's comments and felt that he was being asked to prove a negative that the attached house is a bad solution. He asked how many different bad solutions they needed to present. Vice-Chair Kricensky replied that the Board was not necessarily requesting a design, but rather showing why it does not work. He said that it could be a disaster to create an attached structure on that site. Mr. Hartley said he could model another building but he was unsure what would be sufficient to prove that it is a bad design. Chair Tollini said this requirement is dictated by the ordinance, and in the absence of that requirement this was not something that the Board would need. Mr. Hartley questioned what would be deemed as proof, and Boardmember Emberson suggested a three- dimensional drawing with more detail. Chair Tollini said that the drawing needed to be thoughtful and feasible and could include some sort of rendering or anything that would help the Board make its decision. He said that the Board appeared to agree that it would be possible to support two structures on the lot but they needed the information demonstrating why the attached unit would not work. Boardmember Weller said that the Board needed something that would show a reasonable alternative to the two structures that would allow them to conclude that that alternative would pose a practical difficulty when compared to a two-structure design. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that there is a set of existing factors on the site that would make it difficult to construct an attached unit, and he suggested that the applicant detail through those factors. Boardmember Weller said that he recognized the applicant had done this to some extent, but he suggested that the next proposal include a specific comparison to the single structure alternative. Mr. Hartley agreed to create a three-dimensional plan and provide more information about the alternative. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the December 2, 2010 meeting. Vote: 5-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. T l I TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 EXHIBIT NO. 11/4/10 MINUTES #20 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2010 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Tollini. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tollini, Vice-Chair Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and Weller Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous announced that the January 6th meeting will be canceled due to the holidays. There meeting scheduled for December 16th will be held as planned, and the next meeting after that will be January 20t". D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 21017; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two- family dwelling exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site along with a new parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line into the Spanish Trail right-of-way, which would not comply with the 15 foot minimum front yard setback in the R-2 zone. APN: 059-201-32 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two-family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. This application was previously reviewed at the July 15, October 7 and November 4, 2010 Design Review Board meetings. Since the last meeting, the applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The following changes have been made to the project design: • The detached dwelling unit has been reduced in size from 1,117 square feet to 992 square feet. One bedroom has been moved from the western side of the building to the rear of the structure, reducing the width of the building from 46 feet to 33 feet. • The dwelling has been moved back on the site approximately 3 feet and the height of the structure has been reduced approximately one foot. • The front porch cover has been reinstated to the front of the dwelling. • An open trellis has been added on top of the proposed parking pad on Vista Del Mar. TMURON D.R.B. MINUTES #20 EXHIBIT N0. C Z- 12/2/10 The applicant has prepared written comments and a conceptual design for an attached second dwelling unit to illustrate the difficulty of attaching a second dwelling unit to the existing building on the site. Roger Hartley, designer, said that they have reduced the size of the project, as follows: • They moved the front wall and the second bedroom, which reduced the visible width from the street to 33 feet, which is a 30% reduction. • They lowered the roof another foot. The first design was five feet higher than the current plan. • They have restored the covered porch to break up the roofline and wall line and to articulate the front of the building. • They will install a trellis over the proposed parking pad on Vista Del Mar to soften the front and help to screen the house from the street. • They have added more landscaping between the parking pad and the house and to screen the patio area. Mr. Hartley said that the only thing they had not done was to lower the entire project down into the ground as they felt that they could not excavate any further. He explained their rationale for a detached, versus attached, unit. He noted that the ordinance states that physical conditions must exist on the lot that render it impractical or difficult to construct an attached unit. He said that there is only one place where an attached unit could be built due to the setbacks and it would be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to attach a second dwelling unit in that location. He provided a rendering to demonstrate the impracticality of the attached unit and said if the unit had anything but a flat roof it would obscure the view from the main area of the existing house and also severely impact the views and privacy of the uphill neighbor. He said that an attached unit would have significant effects on the light and landscape and that a hedge would need to be removed that would eliminate screening for the neighbor to the west. He stated that two small units would be more compatible with the look of the neighborhood than one massive structure up the hill. He said that the portion of the existing house immediately behind the new attached unit would become a dark and nearly unusable part of the building. He felt that the lot is perfect for a detached unit since it extends street to street. He also pointed out that the existing house is in need of repairs and in the future, the Board would likely be faced with an entirely new house in its location if the project is not approved. He stated that if the project is approved as is, then the existing house could be repaired and would likely not become a tear-down. Boardmember Weller asked what the depth of the proposed porch is, and Mr. Hartley answered 10 feet and behind the lines of the buildings on the adjacent lots. Chair Tollini asked why the three dormers were not symmetrical and centered as they were in previous plans. Mr. Hartley replied that this was to allow the dormers to align with the sidelights on either side of the entries from the inside of the structure. The public hearing was opened. Sue Zimmerman presented a model constructed to scale from Mr. Hartley's drawings showing the topography of the area, as well as the structures. She presented two designs showing that it would be possible to attach to the existing house. The first fully-attached design would include a deck for the existing house and would save the magnolia tree. The second partially-attached design would retain the view and light to the lower level of the existing house and provide a private patio and yard to the both the existing and new house. -~TRIT NO. -I ~ TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #20 2 12/2/10 Shelley Brown said that the second part of the ordinance deals with site planning superiority of a detached dwelling design, which she defined as one that does no harm and is aesthetically pleasing. She said that Ms. Zimmerman's proposed designs do no harm, are aesthetically pleasing, do not set a precedent, conform to the neighborhood, and add less clutter to the lot because it would be designed in the same manner as the existing home. Ms. Brown said that the proportions of the attached designs would be similar to the existing home with same height ceilings. Ms. Brown said that 8 of the 9 properties with two dwelling units in their study area are attached units and Ms. Zimmerman held up a map of the duplexes they identified in the area. Ms. Brown stated that, including the single family homes, 18 of the 20 lots have one structure, and an attached unit would therefore be more compatible with the neighborhood. Eugene Aureguy said that he thought that the proposed project would enhance the property. He stated that good planning is what matters and attaching a new structure to an old building could make it difficult to renovate the older structure. He asked if Ms. Zimmerman thought that one large building would be better than two small well-maintained buildings. He said that the large structure would wipe out existing trees and create a large building mass at the top of the lot. He said that if this project does not proceed, the garage in that location may be there for years and this is a chance to improve the neighborhood. Wally Quinn, representing Michael Decoucey, said that comparing Mr. Aureguy's property to the current one was like comparing apples to oranges. He expressed concern about the future remodel of the older building if the new building is allowed to be detached. He stated that Mr. Aureguy's project was dropped 8 feet into the ground and has ample separated parking. He said that the proposed dwelling unit would be 16 feet high, which he compared to the top of the windows in the Town Hall. Bill Norris, applicant, referred to a magazine called "Old House" which every month castigates homeowners for attaching old and new structures, which the magazine refers to as "remuddling" instead of remodeling. He said that the lower floor of the existing building is dark now and would be totally dark if a structure was built in front of it. He said that they had reduced the floor area of the proposed house, reduced its width, lowered the roof, and moved the bedroom to the rear. He felt that they had done everything they can do. He agreed with Mr. Aureguy that good planning and design is important and said that his own property will look just as nice as Mr. Aureguy's. He stated that the new building would help the neighborhood and improve property values. He noted that the old garage would be demolished and that would improve the street. Boardmember Weller asked if there had been any changes in the parking deck. Mr. Norris said that they are very flexible and they wanted to reduce the number of cars on Vista Del Mar by putting the parking deck up on Spanish Trail. He said that he was willing to withdraw the deck if there is a concern, but he said that Spanish Trail is a narrow street and those two off-street parking spots would improve parking on that street. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Kricensky commended the neighbors for creating the model and taking the project seriously. He said that the lot area is adequate to accommodate two units, but attaching a unit to the existing residence raises issues. He said that an attached unit would limit the usability of the existing rooms on the lower floor, which would look onto an 8' x 12' space surrounded by three walls and a deck above. He looked at the possibility of using the downstairs existing bedroom as the second bedroom, and that would make the two units about the same size and would not have the suggested 60/40 split. He tried several ways of looking at attaching a second unit and found that, architecturally, all of the solutions would look bad. He said that a large deck on the attached unit would not be private because they would want to maintain views and would have a privacy impact on neighbors because it would be so close. He said that any sloped roof would impact the views for neighbors on Spanish Trail. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #20 FXHIBIT NO. 12/2/10 He said that he also looked a partially attached unit that would be functional but would appear as a four- story building and would be visually massive. He said that the narrowness of the lot and the location of the neighbor's house right on the property line would likely affect the neighbors' view corridor in some way. He said that the semi-attached building could be lowered into the ground, but it would need to go down so far that it would only be able to have glass on the front and a little on the sides. In his opinion, the detached unit made more sense and he thought that the smaller cottage would fit the lot. Boardmember Chong said he that recently visited Charleston, South Carolina, where huge mansions are stacked close together. He felt that from a design standpoint an attached duplex was not the most logical solution because it would not allow for curb appeal or natural light. He thought that some of these regulations have not been around long enough to have been tested thoroughly and include subjective language. He said that the two-structure solution would have fewer impacts on neighbors and would provide better access to parking and improved livability for the residents. He was happy to see the return of the covered porch and other design elements. He hoped that the mature landscaping that would separate the two homes could be kept. He said that this project was consistent with the criteria for detached units and felt that an attached project would be an inferior option by far. Boardmember Emberson agreed with the other Boardmembers. She stated that the best option for this specific site is two detached structures because of the characteristics of the site. She said that the site area is adequate for two separate units. She stated that the physical conditions include what currently exists on the lot, and the existing house should be taken into account. She did not think the attached solutions were as attractive as the two structure solution. She said that there are physical conditions existing on the lot that make it impractical to attach the two units, as that attaching a second unit would cause architectural problems and could impacts views for the home at 2356 Spanish Trail. She said that the conditions of the existing house would make it impractical to connect a second unit and it would look like a huge four-story building. She said that the detached unit would be smaller in scale, have a lower roofline would appear smaller visually. She said that the existing downstairs second unit is barely livable by today's standards, with windows right at ground level, and would require significant excavation to attach a new unit to it. She said that there is no self-created hardship due to the existing lower floor second unit and that the parking would also be improved in the current plan. She thought that the trellis over the parking pad was handsome. She said that she could make the findings that the project was consistent with the required criteria and the project would look better for the neighborhood. Boardmember Weller agreed with the other Boardmembers. He realized how difficult this project is for both sides and acknowledged that both sides have legitimate concerns and objectives. In his view, this particular site merits two detached structures for access and site planning reasons. He wanted to be very clear the Board was not establishing a precedent and this decision pertains only to this particular site. He stated that physical conditions make attached units less than desirable and the proposal demonstrated the site planning superiority of detached units on this site. He felt that all of the plans that would create attached units would create a massive structure that would not be compatible with other homes in the vicinity. His only concern was that the porch was too big and would extend into the corridor between the adjacent properties. He suggested reducing the depth of the porch so that it would have less of a visual impact on the neighbors. He thought that the porch cover was desirable but did not need to be 10 feet deep. He commended the applicant for addressing what the Board requested at previous meetings. Chair Tollini asked if it was the roof overhang or the porch itself that concerned him and Boardmember Weller responded it was the depth of the porch. Chair Tollini asked if it would address his concern if the roof were removed. Boardmember Weller said that the extent of the roof was the problem. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #20 4 12/2/10 i' '`.HIBIT NO. 2- Vice-Chair Kricensky said that 10 feet is enough to entertain in a front porch, and since they already have a side patio to do entertaining, they could reduce the porch to 8 feet. He did not see the porch obstructing any views. He agreed with the staff report on almost everything, but thought that the existing lower floor area was too small to be considered a dwelling unit. Boardmember Emberson agreed that the porch could be brought back to 8 feet. Chair Tollini said that he still liked the porch, but the smaller house lessened the need for the porch space. He said that 8 feet still sounded spacious to him and it would make a difference to reduce the depth. Chair Tollini said that he appreciated the thoughtfulness the Board and staff have put into this project to distill the main issues, and even with the various viewpoints the Board appeared to be coming to the same conclusions. He said that the concerns have been whittled down to just a few issues. He said that there are many reasons are on the record establishing compliance with the criteria that physical conditions on the site render an attached unit difficult or impractical and demonstrate the site planning superiority of detached units on this lot. He thought that the impacts on the neighbors would be reduced by having two separate units. He did not think that the point of the statute was to try to connect units with a breezeway. He said that all of the alternatives for an attached second unit would create more visual impacts and the smaller project design would reduce the visual massiveness. He felt that the currently proposed unit would be more hidden than any of the attached unit options. He felt that the proposed parking would be better for safety reasons and that the parking deck on Spanish Trail was a better solution than adding more parking on Vista Del Mar. Mr. Hartley said that he shares Vice-Chair Kricensky's opinion that it takes 8 feet to have a comfortable porch, but the proposed porch was intended as a main corridor for entering the house and would be less crowded if it were 10 feet deep. Boardmember Emberson said reducing the porch by 2 feet would protect a slot view for the neighbors. Boardmember Weller said it is not so much a slot view, but rather the fact that they are putting a structure in a place where there had been none. He said that he was trying to minimize the effect on the neighbors of this fairly significant change to the site and therefore suggested pushing back the depth of the porch to the extent feasible as a compromise to the neighbors. Chair Tollini noted that when the vegetation is removed the new unit will be more visible and shortening the porch would reduce that impact. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Emberson) that the request for 2312 Spanish Trail is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting the resolution approving the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition that the depth of the porch of the new dwelling unit would be reduced to 8 feet instead of 10 feet. Vote: 5-0. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #19 OF THE 11/18/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Emberson noted the words "He said" should be amended to "She said" on page 4 in the last sentence of the third paragraph. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2010 meeting, as amended. Vote: 5-0. F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #20 (2, 12/2/10 EXHIBIT NO._ He said that, in this case, the intensity was not increased from the original design. Councilmember Fredericks agreed, noting that the application followed the guidelines set forth by the Town. Vice Mayor Slavitz noted that although the increased FAR exceeded that of the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan, it did not exceed the Town's requirements in that area. MOTION: To approve resolution making the amendment above. Moved: Berger, seconded by Thompson Vote: AYES: Unanimous 8. Recommendation by Senior Planner - Appeal of DRB Conditional Approval for Construction of Two Single-Family Dwellings Address - 2355 Paradise Drive Applicant - Eugene Aureguy Appellants - Wallace and Susan Quinn and Robin Moore Assessor's Parcel No. 59-201-49 Senior Planner Watrous said that on October 17, 2002, the Design Review Board had approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new detached two-family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback, on property located at 2355 Paradise Drive. Watrous said that after receiving revised plans for the project, the Design Review Board had concluded that the proposed design did not result in significant view or privacy impacts on neighboring homes, and that the mass and bulk of the proposed structures were acceptable. He said that the Board also determined that the narrowness of the subject lot, the sloping terrain of the property and the lot configuration with access from two streets were factors that justified approval of the detached two-family dwelling. He said that the Board then voted 3-1-1 (Boardmember Comstock dissenting and Boardmember Beales absent) to conditionally approve the application. This decision was subsequently appealed by Robin Moore, the owner of the adjacent property at 2360 Vista Del Mar Lane, and Wallace and Susan Quinn, owners of the nearby property at 2343 Paradise Drive. Watrous summarized the grounds listed by both sets of appellants, as set forth in the Staff report. He said that Ms. Moore's appeal had eight grounds, which included a question about property lines, the removal of trees, adverse privacy, parking and light impacts. Watrous said that the DRB had concluded that these issues had been sufficiently addressed by the applicant and he recommended denial of the appeal. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 4 _ EXHIBIT NO. 13 Watrous said that the Quinn's appeal was based upon two grounds: 1) That the approval of two dwellings in separate structures was inconsistent with Section 2.05.01 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance; and 2) That the decision by the Board set a precedent for other R-2 zoned properties and would result in de facto upzoning of those properties. He said that the issue of interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance had also been addressed in a memo to the Design Review Board from the Director of Community Development. He said that because one of the issues pertained to the right of the DRB to interpret the Zoning Ordinance in this way, Town Staff had placed a similar application in abeyance pending the outcome of this appeal. Watrous said that the Council could either remand the Quinn's appeal to the Planning Commission as a policy issue for further study prior to hearing the appeal, or go forward with the appeal hearing. Senior Planner Watrous asked whether there were any questions of Council. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the structure that previously existed on the site was a duplex. Watrous answered affirmatively. Mayor Gram asked how large the previous structure was. Architect Hank Bruce said it was approximately 2500 square feet. Vice Mayor Slavitz asked whether it would be appropriate to add language to the zoning ordinance section that would require hardship findings, similar to those process required for obtaining variances, in order to approve detached [duplex] dwellings. Director of Community Development Anderson said that in 1989 the Planning Commission was "crystal clear" in its opposition to two detached dwellings in an R-2 zone when the current zoning language was created; however, he said the Commission had left a "narrow window" in the ordinance whereby if a "better solution" existed, and a physical condition existed to warrant it, two detached dwellings could be built. Senior Planner Watrous said it was similar to the language in the ordinance pertaining to the construction of two-story dwellings in the Bel Aire neighborhood. He said that the intention of the provision's language was not to make it "easier" but rather, not to add the "burden" of applying for a variance in these instances. Councilmember Thompson asked whether the issue should be remanded to the Planning Commission immediately, prior to hearing the appeals. The majority of the Council voted to hear the appeals prior to discussing this issue. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 5 EXHIBIT NO. 13 Mayor Gram opened the public hearing on the Quinn appeal. Sue Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, since 1986, thanked Council and the neighbors for their input on this subject. She said the issue was not whether there was enough rental housing stock in Tiburon but rather, whether it was appropriate to have one or two buildings on the site in question. She said that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance said to allow detached units only in "very rare circumstances." Ms. Quinn had been present during the meetings where the actual crafting of the wording of the section took place, and that she remembered it very well. Ms. Quinn said that what we [the Commission] wanted in the R-2 zone were buildings that had the appearance of single-family homes, but that language was put in so as to not deny fair use of a few lots that they felt existed that could support two structures. She said she was "appalled" by the DRB interpretation of this section and had asked for a second opinion from the Director of Community Development to verify her recollection. Ms. Quinn also said she found a reference in the Elmo DeMartini project file that stated that "single family dwellings were intended in the R-2 zone." On the color-coded map she had prepared, which was an exhibit to the appeal, Ms. Quinn showed the different lot sizes of the surrounding area and existing structures (one unit; duplexes; and three or more units). She also showed condominiums and attached dwellings with no common wall. She concluded, based on her research, that if the Design Review Board approval held, 44% of the R-2 zone properties would be eligible to have two structures. Mayor Gram asked whether any of the lots in question would qualify under the "terrain" exception. Ms. Quinn said that one, with a large rock on the lot, would qualify, in her opinion, and that another might be the lot that contained the Lyford's Hygeia bathhouse (an historic structure) in the middle of the property. Ms. Quinn said that on this basis, there was "remarkable consensus" on the part of the drafters of the ordinance to maintain the R-2 zone with single structures. Finally, Ms. Quinn showed photographs of various duplexes and single-family homes in the R-2 zone and asked Council and the public if they could tell the difference. She said that the difficulty in telling them apart meant that the "objective" of the ordinance had been met. She contended that the argument that two structures on the lot in question would appear "less massive" was erroneous, and showed examples of duplexes built on lots of similar terrain. Councilmember Berger disagreed with her assessment that one structure appeared "less massive" in one of the photographs. _ Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 6 EXHIBIT NO, 1'3 Ms. Quinn recommended that the application to build two structures at 2355 Paradise Drive be denied and that the issue [of two structures] be remanded to the Planning Commission for futher study. She said that the Commission could identify and grandfather in some lots, and/or add text to the ordinance to make it clear that the R-2 zone prohibited building two structures unless it was either "impossible or impractical" to build them in another other way. Hank Bruce, architect representing applicant Eugene Aureguy, suggested that the Town Council need not remand the issue for further study, and that the Zoning Ordinance gave them the Council and Commissions all the necessary tools they needed for "good design" and "good planning." Mr. Bruce said that the "whole point of this application" was to protect and preserve the character of Old Tiburon, and to reinforce and reproduce structures that could be woven into the fabric of the community. Bruce said that Ms. Quinn's photos showed large duplex structures that were out of character in scale, texture, and in all ways, but that the design of the Aureguy application was for two "cottages" that were more consistent with the neighborhood character and were also warranted by the site and its specific conditions. Mr. Bruce said that he did not "come at" the application with two structures in mind, but said he quickly concluded that the roads at the top and bottom of the lot would allow for [dual] access and could leave a large yard space in the middle. He said this was the kind of "open space" that was needed in Old Tiburon, and that one structure would intrude into the space and be massive, even without a garage. The access from both the upper and lower portion of the lot would also "split the traffic load," according to Bruce, a benefit to a neighborhood with already difficult parking and traffic issues. Mayor Gram asked Mr. Bruce to list the physical considerations of this lot that would make the building of two structures a reduction of "visual, environmental or other impacts," as called for by the Ordinance. Mr. Bruce listed the terrain, the narrow and deep lot, the splitting of the traffic load onto two streets, and the existing garden and open space preservation (factors which, in his opinion, were the "equivalent" of the rock on the lot described by Ms. Quinn). Furthermore, Bruce said, there were actually view "enhancements" to be achieved by the two- building design, and that the smaller scale and would reduce the lot coverage by 20%. He reiterated that the design would be compatible with and protect the neighborhood character. Mr. Bruce said that no precedent would be set by approval of the project, and that Mr. Aureguy was willing to impose a deed restriction on the property against [future] condominiumization. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 7 EXHIBIT NO.-- t 3 Councilmember Thompson expressed his concerns about condominiumization. Senior Planner Watrous said that the lot coverage and FAR's for condo's would be the same as if they were under one ownership, on this lot. However, he said that a lot split would result in a different outcome, but he opined that it would be "very unlikely" that a lot split would be approved for such a small lot. Mayor Gram asked about the boundary dispute and Architect Bruce said the design had taken into account a "worse case scenario" approach with regard to this issue. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Bill Lukens, 160 Las Lomas Lane, said that his property had been mentioned by Ms. Quinn and that it would be affected by any change to the Zoning Ordinance. He said that he owned three lots in the R-2 zone, and that he agreed with the conclusion that there were instances where two structures would work. He said he liked the "discretionary" approach to interpreting the Ordinance and asked that the Council not eliminate the language in question, nor make it so narrow as to "not make sense." He also said that keeping the status quo would ensure that small, low-income rentals remained in Old Tiburon. Dan Archer, said it would be "devastating" to remove the clause in question, and that separate structures, especially in Old Tiburon, were okay. He said not every building should look like a single-family dwelling. Ann DeMartini, owner of 2321 and 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane, directly behind the property in question, said that she and her husband created a duplex out of a single-family home 25 years ago and that it had worked out "just fine." She said she disagreed with Mr. Bruce's comments regarding "open space," stating that "more buildings and more people" would reduce the open space. She also said she was concerned about increased traffic (from two structures) and that the two (proposed) garages facing her property that would use her driveway apron as a turnaround. Pam Bartlett, 2360 Paradise Drive, said she liked the two small cottages proposed for the site; that it "fits in" and is "more comfortable" than one structure which would be "higher, narrower, and look like a train." Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. Ms. Quinn disputed the notion that the "current application is considerably smaller." She said that one structure would have a maximum FAR of 2800 square feet, and that two driveways and two accesses actually "takes away" from the open space. Councilmember Berger disagreed, stating that no more green space would be created by one structure; rather that it would be "reapportioned." Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 8 EXHIBIT NO. F3 Ms. Quinn countered that for her, a single mass of green was better than a "chopped up" one; she gave the example of the two dwellings at 160 Solano as an example of "chopped up" space. Ms. Quinn also said that the "character" of Old Tiburon no longer consisted of cottages, nor was it "headed that way" in the future. She said that it should be kept "in conformance" with the rest of Tiburon which was predominantly comprised of single-family homes. Ms. Quinn again mentioned the approval of the second house at 160 Solano, which she said was later condominiumized, and sold by the owner who then moved out of Tiburon. Mayor Gram closed the rebuttal portion of the hearing. Councilmember Berger said he was pleased to be "on the same side" as Mr. Lukens with regard to the zoning issue. He said that Ms. Quinn's presentation showed a "total misunderstanding" of the charm of Old Tiburon. He said that her charts highlighted the "variety" of design rather than a neighborhood of large, single-family homes. He said that the examples of duplexes shown by Ms. Quinn were more "massive" than single family homes and that the configuration of the site required two structures. He said he would vote to maintain the Zoning Ordinance as is and allow the Boards and Commissions discretion and "common sense" rather than creating rules that "overly constrain" them. He said there was no need to remand the issue to the Planning Commission. Mayor Gram asked what Councilmember Berger thought were the facts that reduced the visual and environmental impacts of this application. Councilmember Berger addressed the issue of views. He said that "housing seeks perimeter" and that structures "wanted to look at the water." In this instance, Berger said, one structure would have the same FAR but would have to be "stacked up" to look at the water. He said that the DRB "used their eyes" and that "all you see is a little cottage from above." He said that the two small structures concept was applicable to this property. Councilmember Fredericks asked to reframe the issue. She said that the issue was not to prohibit two structures, but to address the history of the ordinance. She said that it gave preference to designs that looked like single-family dwellings and gave exceptions when necessary. Fredericks recommended that the wording of the section be changed to state a preference for one structure and to require a strong showing for two structures. In other words, she recommended that the Planning Commission not "forbid" two structures but state the historical preference for a single- family dwelling "look" in the R-2 zone. Councilmember Berger disagreed with this recommendation. Ms. Fredericks said that she was not sure what one structure would look like from the street below; she suggested that it might be set back on the lot. _ Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 9 EXHIBIT NO. ~ Vice Mayor Slavitz said that he was listening to two of the most gifted architects in Tiburon address the issue, but that it was not a clear issue. He agreed with Councilmember Fredericks that the Town Code and history pointed to a preference for one structure and said that he was concerned about setting a precedent in approving two. Slavitz said that two structures would increase the "visual density" and would multiply by two the "apparent density". He said that two buildings would maximize the lot coverage while one would have more backyard and one less driveway. Slavitz stated his belief that the lot was not special nor was there anything about it that dictated two buildings. He also said he would send the question of interpretation of the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission, with a recommendation to re-draft it to require findings similar to those of a variance. Councilmember Thompson said that there was a lot of subjectivity in review of this application, and that points of view represented were those of a "theoretical" versus a "practical" approach. Thompson said he thought a 7,500 - 10,000 square foot lot was too small for two structures, and that the approval of the project at 160 Solano was a mistake. Thompson said he thought the Council should encourage attached single-family dwellings in the R-2 Zone, but that exceptions were needed where it was not practical. However, he said this application was "a close call." Thompson said that he feared setting a precedent and that he was concerned about the two structures becoming separately-owned units which would "grow" when future owners asked for additions. Nevertheless, he said that after he stood on Robin Moore's deck and when he viewed the lot from the DeMartini home, he said he thought two buildings would look "better" from those vantage points. Mayor Gram said that the ordinance was "clear;" that he did not have a problem with its interpretation nor did it have to go back to the Planning Commission for review. But he said that the findings of the section must be met. He said the history of the Ordinance was always accessible; that what remained was whether the findings could be met and what the factors were that justified the approval in this instance. Gram listed the parking issue and its mitigation as a factor that justified the two structures; he said that the "open space" was not a factor; that visually, two structures "looked better" (visual finding); and that the narrowness of the site was a factor. He then asked how two structures would "read" from Paradise Drive, for example, and whether two buildings would read as "more dense" than one which could possibly "cancel out" the other visual impacts. Councilmember Berger said that the [rear dwelling] story poles could not be seen from Paradise Drive. Councilmember Fredericks said that was because there was an existing structure blocking them. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 10 _\r TBTT NO, Architect Hank Bruce said that he lived across the street and could not see the story poles in question; and that in any event, the front dwelling would be four feet higher so as to block that view. Mayor Gram said that when he was faced with a difficult decision in an appeal, he relied on the deliberation and findings of the Design Review Board. Councilmember Fredericks said that she thought the DRB would have prohibited two structures if the Ordinance had been more clear. Vice Mayor Slavitz said that it was the Council's role to make these kinds of policy decisions. Councilmember Thompson said that the real question was how to guard against greater density, noting that sometimes people "get away" with over-developing property through misinterpretation. Mayor Gram said that there were two issues: 1) Does the project qualify under the Ordinance [section]; 2) Should the issue of interpretation (of the section) go back to the Planning Commission for review? Councilmember Thompson said yes to both. MOTION: To deny the Quinn's appeal and approve the project [two structures] at 2355 Paradise Drive based on the findings of the reduction of visual, environmental and other impacts. Moved: Berger, seconded by Gram Vote: AYES: Berger, Gram and Thompson NOES: Fredericks, Slavitz Mayor Gram moved on to the Moore appeal. Robin Moore, 2360 Vista Del Mar Lane, since 1987, handed out a map showing neighbors who were either in favor or opposed to the project. Ms. Moore said that both the upper unit (Unit B) and lower unit (Unit A) would affect her views, especially Unit B which was "massive, looms over her property" and would impede sunlight and views from her deck and garden. Ms. Moore said that noise would be increased from two buildings and she said that she already heard noise from Mr. Aureguy's home. She said that traffic would be increased and mentioned the danger to children in the neighborhood from cars backing out onto Paradise Drive. She said that the upper unit would use Mrs. De Martini's driveway apron to make their turnarounds. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page I1 EXHIBIT NO. t 3 Moore said that Mr. Aureguy filed another application in 1990 which was denied. She asked that the Council grant her appeal and deny this application, as well. Hank Bruce, representing the applicant, Mr. Aureguy, said that the grounds of the appeal were thoroughly covered in the Staff report. He said that there was 40 feet from Ms. Moore's deck to the building in question, and he disputed the allegations concerning air, sun and privacy impacts. He said that no windows were on that side of the building and that landscaping was being added to reduce the visual impact. Mr. Bruce said that the previous submittal referenced by Ms. Moore was for one massive structure comprised of two buildings linked by a walkway. In any event, he said the application was filed before the applicable Ordinance section was adopted. Councilmember Fredericks asked if there was enough space for cars to turn around without using Mrs. DeMartini's driveway. Bruce said that there was. Vice Mayor Slavitz asked about the visual screening. Mr. Bruce said that the wall facing Ms. Moore's house would be a soft muted color and would be screened by trees. Both Vice Mayor Slavitz and Councilmember Fredericks said that the story poles looked very tall standing in Ms. Moore's back yard and asked Mr. Bruce for dimensions of the dwelling. He said that it would be 21 feet tall at the peak and 19 feet wide, and that they were going to "hip" the roof. The Council and Mr. Bruce discussed other dimensions, such as the plate height (Berger said it was 16 feet from the dirt to the plate; Bruce said the height of the first floor was 12 feet approximately, and eight feet to the plate approximately). Councilmember Thompson asked about the elimination of stairwell windows. Mayor Gram closed the first portion of the public hearing. During her rebuttal, Ms. Moore said that a) sunlight would be taken away; the height of the upper structure was massive; and that she and her neighbors (the DeCourcy's) would be "engulfed" by the structure; that there was not enough parking; that the use of the lot would change; that her property value would go down. Finally, she asked the Council why the "new people" could get what they wanted but the older residents could not preserve what they had. Mr. Quinn read an excerpt from a letter from the DeCourcy's. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 12 EXHIBIT NO. 13 Mr. Aureguy said that if the dwelling was moved forward on the lot that Ms. Moore's views of the Golden Gate Bridge would be impacted. Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thompson reiterated his remarks that in certain situations, two structures could be seen as breaking up the mass and bulk of a project and would "spread it out." He said that in this instance one structure would be "big and bulky" and not fit into the character of the neighborhood. He speculated that one structure would have been subject to more scrutiny by the Design Review Board to "tone it down" and possibly the Board would have required less square footage than the two structures combined. Thompson said that the Golden Gate Bridge view was better for Ms. Moore with the two structures but agreed that Unit B "loomed" over the two neighboring homes and would "stick out" in the rest of the neighborhood. Thompson made the suggestion to "drop it down" [Unit B] and lower it into the grade. He said this could be accomplished by excavating five or six feet into the hillside. That way it [Unit B] would still retain its views and help the DeMartinis and Ms. Moore. The lowering would also drop the deck on Unit B, according to Thompson, so that it would not look down onto the Quinn's and neighbor's yards. Thompson suggested that the roof pitch of Unit A could come down a couple of feet which would not diminish the design; alternatively, it could be "dropped down" and excavated, as well. Vice Mayor Slavitz said that Councilmember Thompson's comments "hit the nail on the head," in that one sructure on the site would have been a lot smaller than two and would have had less visual impact. He said what the Council was struggling with was the result of two buildings on the lot. He said he was "struck" by the height of the story poles and that, in his, opinion, homes always "come out much larger than the story poles." Although he agreed that the space in the middle of the proposed project preserved the view of the Bay, Slavitz said it could also have been accomplished with one structure. He said that the two- structure design benefited the owner of the property but created other problems. Councilmember Berger said that lowering the building five feet would be hard to achieve and keep the parking but that a three-foot reduction in plate height was probably achievable. He said that Unit A would have to "come down" if Unit B was lowered in height. Berger said that in his experience in serving on the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, one house would have been just as large [in square footage] because applicants always sought the maximum allowable square footage. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 13 EXHIBIT NO. I S Councilmember Berger also said that he was concerned with preserving the privacy of Ms. Moore's side yard, but noted that her house was really designed to look out at the Bay. However, he said that restricting the corner wrapping windowns on the back end and minimizing the "light pollution" from the stairwell windows could help address her concerns. Councilmember Fredericks said that two structures on the lot was the problem and that she was not convinced that it was the only solution. She said that Ms. Moore was not concerned about the view of the Bay but about the loss of privacy and light from her garden. Mayor Gram said he agreed that the buildings should be lowered and that the roofs should come down, but he didn't know how many feet. However, he said he would vote for the two structures as proposed by the applicant. Councilmember Thompson said that it would be helpful in the future for plans to show two structures on one lot in scale and in relation to the whole lot and each other. He also said that he would vote to require a deed restriction so that the units would not be condominiumized; and that he still thought the unit [B] should be dropped five feet either into the grade or in height, and still have a view of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge. Architect Bruce and Councilmember Berger disagreed with the five-foot recommendation. Mayor Gram said that the Council should not deal with specific numbers. The Council discussed whether to remand the application to the DRB for review or have Staff review the plans with direction for a "significant drop" or to lower the units "as much as possible." Vice Mayor Slavitz reiterated that the front unit (Unit A) would have to be lowered, as well. Councilmember Berger said that the roof would have to come down on that unit because "if the back unit is lowered the front one will want to look over it." Architect Bruce said that he did not know if lowering the unit three feet was achievable. He suggested that the Council just give the direction to "lower the building." Councilmember Fredericks said that if the proposed change was such that Ms. Moore would still see a "looming mass" from her garden, she wondered whether three feet would actually help. If not, she suggested that the architect not be further "tortured." Mayor Gram asked whether anyone wanted to make a motion. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 14 EXHIBIT NO. 13 MOTION: To remand the project to DRB with the understanding that two units on the site is permitted but that we are directing the applicant, the project sponsor, to attempt non-trivial modifications to improve the light in the adjacent yards and to improve the/lower the mass vis a vis Unit B to the adjacent yards. Moved: Berger Senior Planner Watrous said that the Council had also talked about the privacy impacts. Councilmember Berger added that the DRB should address window size and locations to increase privacy for the houses on either side; properties. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the deed restriction about condominiumization was in the motion. Councilmember Berger said that because the applicant had offered it, the Town should accept it, but that he did not want to say that people who build projects in Tiburon could not condominiumize. Gram said that in this instance, a condition should be placed on this particular project not to condominiumization or subdivide it. Councilmember Thompson seconded the motion, as amended. Vice Mayor Slavitz asked whether the changes to the structures, "hipping" the roofs and lowering them a number of feet, could be reviewed by Staff rather than remanding the application to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Berger asked Staff whether they felt that they would be able to make a judgment for what a "non-trivial amount" of a drop was. Senior Planner Watrous said that Staff would prefer that there be very specific direction so that it was not a subjective decision. Councilmember Berger asked whether Staff would be comfortable with "three feet on the back unit and some more feet on the front unit." Councilmember Thompson suggested the direction of "three feet or more," and "an appropriate reduction on the front [unit] Mayor Gram asked Councilmember Thompson if his second to the motion still stood; Thompson said that the motion started off with remanding the application to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Berger withdrew the previous motion in order to formulate a new one. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 15 EXHIBIT NO, l r3 Senior Planner Watrous clarified that the motion should state that Council was partially granting appeal with the following conditions. MOTION: "...that in so doing we're directing the project sponsor to go back for Staff s approval in which Unit B is lowered 3 feet or more and Unit A is lowered, the roof is lowered, some appropriate distance; that the project sponsor's offer to put a deed restriction on that project not be condominiumized be accepted; and that the windows facing the two side yards be redesigned to increase privacy to the side properties and light pollution effects be minimized." Moved: Berger Second: Thompson (with the comment that it be "understood" that the direction to Staff was three feet) (or more (Berger)). Vice Mayor Slavitz asked whether the three foot reduction would be based on a "hipped" roof design, rather than the current design. Councilmember Berger said that the "hipped" roof just meant that the two triangular sides "tip in," but that the ultimate height was to come down three feet. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the plans reflected the original reduction of a certain number of feet that was achieved between the time of the DRB and the appeal, so that the Council direction was for three feet in addition to the six or eight feet shown in these drawings. Council concurred. Vote: AYES: Unanimous Director of Community Development Anderson asked whether the Council wished to return to the issue of whether the Zoning Ordinance section needed clarification and the policy issue of one structure versus two structures in the R-2 zone should be remanded to the Planning Commission. MOTION: "To send it [Zoning Ordinance section] to the Planning Commission (and to use Mrs. Quinn's map) to see if the variance-type findings (suggested by Vice Mayor Slavitz) were necessary and also to consider the question of whether this Ordinance should reflect that single-family dwelling-type appearances are a preference and two structures should only be allowed with these strict findings." Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Slavitz Vote: AYES: Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Thompson NOES: Berger Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 16 `3 EXHIBIT NO. L 2345 Spanish Trail Rd. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 June, 23,2010 To Whom May Concern Tiburon Design Review Board Re: Norris construction 2312 Spanish Trail Ass. # 059-201-32 Tiburon Town Hall Dear Board Members, My husband and I wish to voice our concern about the construction of detached two- family home on Spanish Trail. The neighborhood is very congested and parking is extremely limited. The owners asking for approval do not use their own parking off Linda Vista--- consistently using Spanish Trail for 3 cars. Where would potentially 4 more cars go? This is a very small neighborhood with homes that fit the character and nature of the topography. By adding what seems a large addition, it is our conviction that the City will be allowing further eroding the character of Old Tiburon. We would urge you to take a very hard look at the site so you can see for yourselves how crowded we already are. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, nne S. Drew W. Lawrence Drew EXHIBIT NO.iq Shelley N. Brown 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920-1208 (415) 435-8435 home (415) 827-8435 cell June 25, 2010 To: Mr. Dan Watrous and Tiburon Design Review Board Re: 2312 Spanish Trail/Bill Norris :~;V t V Ss l1 C_ -t My home at 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane is directly next door to the Norris property and as the neighbor most directly impacted by the proposed Norris home, I am writing to object to the proposed single family home. I am a single working mother of a teen-aged son and we have owned and lived in our house for 16 years. The current story poles show the proposed second home as looming over my property with invasion of our pre-existing privacy and obstruction of our water and ridgeline views of the East Bay and East Bay Hills. • The covered front porch on the proposed Norris home will eliminate any sense of privacy in my front yard and front deck which we use on a daily basis. From my second floor, the proposed roof line eliminates the water and ridgeline view. • The two proposed windows (one Bay window) on the north side of the home will look directly into my second bedroom, living room and front door entrance and deck. ~his We enjoy our neighborhood and the separation afforded among neighbors. proposed home eliminates green space and separation and adds immensely to the density. • Parking is a continual problem on Vista Del Mar and the addition of another single family home will only exacerbate street parking and vehicular congestion. ~uilding Zoned for R2, the Norris home currently has a second unit in their primary which had been previously rented for 30 years (when owned by Nat and Jean Marans) and most recently was/is occupied by their adult daughter. • 16-2.5.4 Detached two-family dwelling exception: b. Norris detached second home will adversely affect land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts. F2 There is adequate space and physical conditions to construct an attached unit. EXHIBIT NO P. i OF? f.3 Two dwelling units in two detached building would NOT likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-famiy dwelling on the lot. In fact, it would increase the impact. I would like to invite staff and Design Review Board members to come and see for yourself the potentially devastating view impediments, my privacy concerns and the overall negative impact and claustrophobic nature on Vista Del Mar Lane of this proposed building as an additional separate home on the Norris property. Thank you. Shelley Brown 435-8435 827-8435 View from Brown living room EXHIBIT N0. is T . z a1:~ 7 View from Brown front door and deck A AK EXHIBIT N0. 15- 3 . oF7 Proximity and height of front covered porch to Brown front walkway EXHIBIT NO. 1 5 P.4OF7 Proposed Roofline impacting View from Brown 2nd floor EXHIBIT- N0. ~ S *P, 5-C>F 7 View from Vista Del Mar Lane of Brown home w/proposed front covered porch above and behind existing garage EXHIBIT NO. 15-_ Street width of house. Brown house on left; Norris house center s EXHIBIT NO. 15 June 30, 2010 Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA. 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous: We live on the cul-de-sac at the end of 2400 Vista del Mar Lane; we have owned our home for approximately ten years. In general, we believe homeowners should have the right to develop their properties to meet their needs and we try to be tolerant and supportive neighbors. That being said, we are strongly opposed to the proposed construction at 2312 Spanish Trail of a second detached home. Although we are not directly affected in terms of view, we necessarily must travel past the subject property numerous times a day and a second home on this lot will add to the congestion and density of what is already a tight, densely packed area. Vista del Mar is a narrow, one lane road that requires a driver to either back up or pull into a driveway when meeting an oncoming car, which happens fairly regularly. In fact, the owners of the subject property contribute disproportionately to the eyesore and congestion by parking numerous vehicles, often somewhat randomly, in front of their "garage" and on a lane nearby. Construction of a second home on the property will exacerbate the current aesthetic, density and lane egress issues. The property in question has always been a duplex within an existing structure. There is clearly adequate space and access to expand the existing unit or develop an attached unit. Accordingly there are options available to the existing homeowners that could meet their expansion needs without adding unduly to the already suboptimal situation. In summary we protest the expansion as proposed for the following reasons: 1. An additional detached property will add to the traffic and congestion on an already crowded and potentially dangerous neighborhood one lane road. 2. The construction of an additional detached residence on this property would unfavorably add to the density of our lane and adversely impact the neighborhood. 3. We are concerned that that this could be the first step in a request for a lot split on this property. 4. There are other options available to the homeowner to add on or expand the existing structure to meet their needs; these would have much less deleterious impact. Should you wish to discuss this please feel free to contact us at 415-435-2804. Thank you for your consideration. Dennis and Terry Schwakopf EXHIBIT NU. Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Celia DeMartini [celiadm@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:05 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: 'Shelley Brown'; wallyandsuequinn@msn.com Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail Dan- To follow is the letter I wrote dated June 22, 2010 concerning the proposed project located at 2312 Spanish Trail. In that letter i discuss parking issues and potential for gridlock on Vista Del Mar Lane. The attached pictures are indicative of the issue I raised in the letter. Both of these pictures were taken on the same day. 1. The first picture looks eastward and includes the front of 2312. In the picture is a truck across Vista Del Mar Lane from 2312 but parked on Vista Del Mar Lane and a Mercedes parked in front of the garages on the subject property. 2. The second picture is the carport that was built to hold one car however the day I took this picture there were three cars parked on the carport. Normally there are 2-3 sometimes 4 cars parked there. Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, Celia DeMartini 415-924-8363 EXHIBIT NO. - 17 P. c aF~s 7/6/2010 June 22, 2010 Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tibuorn 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous: My Mother, Ann DeMartini owns 2323/2321 Vista Del Mar Lane a legal two unit structure which borders 2312 Spanish Trail on the east side of the subject property. My Mother and I are opposed to the proposed construction of a second detached house on the property as we feel this new structure if built would violate the intent and reasons for the policy established in the R-2 zoning ordinance 16-2.5.4. Namely; additional structures located near Vista Del Mar Lane would severely mar the residential feel of the neighborhood adversely effecting property values for all the property owners on Vista Del Mar Lane. Currently with one exception the lane visually consists of small single family or single structure per lot type buildings and we feel it would be aesthetically and architecturally a mistake to allow a second structure on 2312. More personally the design of the structure if built could impact my Mother's tenant's privacy. The current design of the new structure has windows on the east side of the structure-from these windows one could potentially look into Ann's tenant's living room and deck. Vista Del Mar Lane is one of Tiburon's narrowest lanes. Complicating the aesthetic issue there is not adequate vehicular parking on Vista Del Mar Lane for cars regularly using the lane now. More cars would create an eyesore. However my worry is that grid- lock on the Lane will slow emergency response to and evacuation from the Lane in case of fire or other life threatening emergency. Additionally the owners of the subject property typically use the `garages' for storage other than automobiles-they frequently park 3-4 cars somewhat haphazardly elsewhere on their property or on the Lane near the property. They have the right to park cars on their property; my worry is as is typical now, the off street parking provided won't be used for cars and if the new structure were to be built two more cars in addition to the 3-4 regularly there will be parked somewhere on the Lane near the property. Additional vehicles would provide a partial blockage of the Lane at 2312. So our expectation and worry would be that this parking situation would certainly be an eyesore but in addition the vehicles associated with this property will block easy access for other Lane residents and pose potential life safety issues for the residents east of the subject property. EXHIBIT N0. _R P, Sov- F My Mother has been a resident on Vista Del Mar Lane since 1958 and I was raised there, for as long as we can remember 2312 Spanish Trail has always been two units. The two units are contained in the one original structure. Even if one were to remove the second kitchen-thus removing the unit, a kitchen can easily re-installed after occupancy permits have been issued. No matter what is done with the existing rental unit on this property allowing a second structure and therefore a third actual unit would negate the R-2 zoning entirely. In addition allowing the second structure can create a defacto lot split regardless of the provision requiring restrictions on future subdividing of the property because neither the City nor any current owner can predict how future owners/partners could potentially structure their ownership. For instance Tenancies in common occur frequently in San Francisco and other parts of California for properties that have not or will not be condomiumized. This is an example and I am a former realtor, not an attorney, however it seems to me that a future Tenancy in Common type ownership of this property could and would essentially split the lot. For these reasons my Mother and I are opposed to the proposed additional structure on 2312 Spanish Trail. If you wish to discuss this letter with me, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Celia DeMartini PO Box 747 Corte Madera, CA 94976 415-924-8363 Ann DeMartini 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435-1793 EXHIBIT NO. t7 T, -3- cv--~r a' 3 F"r f vyy q Y a u ~l IIII x' s k L a fie: xr" VSr~ 1b ~ 7 !'ls'' Y L F t+,~ f ~Kd i' ti s4 Is Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Michael DeCourcy [michaeldec@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 2:37 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Ityler@city.tiburon.ca. us Subject: 2312 Spanish Trail - Assessor's Parcel No. 059-201-32 - Norris Construction Dear Mr. Watrous and Ms. Tyler, I am the owner of property located at 2345 Paradise Drive. This property is directly across Vista Del Mar from the proposed development. My property is next door (to the West) of Mr. Aurequy's property located at 2344 Paradise Drive. As you know, a few years ago, Mr. Aureguy was allowed to construct two unattached rental units on his property over the objections of many. That development has severely and adversely affected my property. At the time of Mr. Aureguy's plans and construction, evidently no thought was given to the drainage and soil erosion issues caused by his development. Any concern about these issues were alleviated by merely having the run-off directed over my property. The soil erosion on my property due to the run-off is significant and continuous. I am required to replace the soil on and on-going basis. In addition, the run-off has eroded the foundation of my retaining wall on the back of my property abutting Vista Del Mar Lane. Unknown persons continuously park their cars and trucks next to and sometimes on top of my retaining wall. Parking, combined with the drainage issues has affected the structural integrity of the retaining wall. It is now leaning at a significant angle into my yard. If the wall collapses, the surface of Vista Del Mar Lane will be affected. No doubt the city will attempt to require me to pay for all repairs. My point is, if you allow this proposed development, (which you no doubt will), the city must require the developer to address the drainage and run-off issues to protect the properties across Vista Del Mar and at a lower elevation. The city should, at a minimum, require the developer to provide landscaping and barriers (such as a fence) adjacent to the affected properties on the south side of Vista Del Mar Lane. Secondly, all parking on Vista Del Mar Lane should be prohibited. This no parking ban should be strictly enforced to include ticketing and towing of vehicles. As I stated at the hearings involving the Aureguy development, once you approved such a significant development, the flood-gates would open. Such seems to be the case. If this development is approved, rest assured more will come... including the property at 2345 Paradise Drive. Lastly, when I appeared to discuss the Aureguy development, it was almost mockingly pointed out by members of the Board that my property also contained a second building. As I stated, but was rudely rebuffed, that building consists of one room and a bath. It is not suitable for rental, but to be used by family, in that the main house has only one bedroom. If you wish to inspect that building, please contact me, and I will make appropriate arrangements. _ This statement is sent to preserve my legal rights for any future Court challenge. Michael De Courcy EXHIBIT NO. IC 7/7/2010 From: JEROME BERNAL <bernala@sbcalobal.net> Date: July 5, 2010 3:38:15 PM PDT To: dwatrous@citiburon.caus Subject: 2312 Spanish Trial/Norris Jerome Bernal 2310 Spanish Trail Ti buron,CA 94920 Dan Watrous Tiburon Planning Manager LATE MAIL # 3 !UL 20 x a I have not had an opportunity to review the proposed plans for the detached second home at 2312 Spanish Trail. I inquired about them at the desk several times, however they were not in by Thursday, and am leaving town on Tuesday,and will not return until after the meeting. My main concern is with the increasing density in the Lyfords Cove subdivision. The 2312 property is an island zoned R2 on Spanish Trial where all other homes are zoned R1. The property was split off many years ago to build a small house a 2300 Vista Del Mar for a daughter at that time. The previous owners had a second unit in the house which they rented out to a tenant. I feel that another detached unit would create density exceeding the norm for the area. Although I briefly spoke with Mr. Norris about parking, the case remains that quite often, cars from the residence are parked half off to the side on Spanish Trail where there is only one off-street parking space that the town created several years ago. I fear that another residence would only exacerbate an already precarious safety issue. Viewing the story polls, If the roof could come down some, I would appreciate it not blocking my views of the East bay. I would not want it being located more up the hill. My other concerns without having seen the plans, would be that square footage and lot coverage not exceed regulations based on my first concern. Look forward to reviewing the plans when I return. Jerome Bernal EXHIBIT NO. 19 01/06/1999 22:52 9939998 LAT... E M A I L #.sfa. July 5, 2010 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon I PAGE 01 Re: Norris Re ues for Der c it on r t Pro 5 Is h Tr 1l to Yjfito- Del W-r Dear Board Members: I am an owner of the home at 2356 Spanish Trail. This house is the only home whose primary view is directly affected by the second unit proposed by Bill and Joy Norris, our neighbors to the west. Our home Is positioned and was built to have a dead-on view of the Bay and Golden Gate from the living and dining rooms, kitchen, two of the three bedrooms and both decks. Accordingly, any interference with this view will substantially affect the appeal and value of this home. Mr. Norris was kind enough to share his plans for building a small unit for his family below the existing home on his property- Moreover, when the story poles originally went up and It became obvious that the house was going to interfere with our primary view, he had the height of the proposed second unit modified and reduced by three feet. With that lowering, there is minimal to no interference with our primary view and, accordingly, I have no objection to the construction of this unit as permitted by the R- 2 zoning. (For your consideration, attached is a mock up of how the new building would appear from out house.) I would also like to add that I prefer this smaller second structure being built as Its small scale is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The alternative would be to tear down or add to the existing house and replace it with a larger home with much more mass and scale. If this were to happen, I believe our view would be severely compromised and that the mass and scale of a new or expanded and remodeled building would be significantly out of character with the more modest improvements that make up the neighborhood's unique ambiance- It would most likely be like the house that was built two homes to the west on Spanish Trail or the three in a row on Centro East. These properties, although conforming to zoning, loom over the other more modest structures in the neighborhood and are out of scale with the neighborhood. instead, I believe it is more fitting to have two smaller structures than another big one as the neighborhood is predominantly smaller structures. Thank you for your service and consideration of this matter. I will be unable to attend your meeting scheduled to review this proposal and have asked one on my neighbors, David Kirchhoff, who lives at 2290 Spanish Trail, to attend the meeting in my absence. Very truly yours, David Whittingharn 2356 Spanish Trail EXHIBIT NO. Zy h z y, N 0 z E-+ HM nP1 w w lz;-- LL N o ~ . ra~ w ti . ISH T RAIL r N N 62°33'00 E _ _ - - " - - I ~ o '9°ooa0•w GARAGE 1 1 - - 48.00' I sao KI 0 1 1 1 APN 059-201-33 I 1 I. 1 1 1 11 I `1 1 I i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT - POTENTIAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT S 1 APN 059-201-32 1 S\" 6~ SOB 1 ~ S F 8' \ APN 059-2 \ I ' 1 I I I II~ " ` I ` ~ ~ I \ I l 1 I ~ ' 1 z ' A I 1 _ ,1 ~ 1 I I Al I". cn I BI,f1L171N~ E~LOP V 1 PROPO ED HOUSE FOOTPRINT I I. 1 1 SIDE SETBACK 1 3128 sq f( 1 I B -0* SIDE SE BACK I I I o i i i , APN 059-201-39 I 1 p I I 1 ~ ~ I I I 1 N 1 1~ I I 1 1 I I 1 Im 11 1 I 1 I I , I II. 'Ir 1 I 1 1 ~ I 1 11~ , 1 1ia~ 1 I 11 1 1 I I 1 I 1 i 1 I I II 1 ~ I I I 1 I ~ C 61.24- 1 7. A D E L S65°2930~w M A R EXHIBIT N0._2'> P1 4 cFcI robert . horrison Transportation Planning and Project Management LATE MAIL # July 6, 2010 2370 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, California 94920 Tel 415 435-2871 Fax 415 435-0118 Mr. Dan Watrous Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard LL 41 - Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous: This is in reference to the Norris residence proposed for 2312 Spanish Trail. As described below, I request that the Town deny the project as currently proposed. I live on Vista Del Mar Lane, about 250 feet north of the proposed project site. I am also a transportation planner with over 40 years experience making recommendations with regard to projects in Marin County. I prepared the Circulation Elements of several local General Plans including the Marin Countywide Plan, and the Sausalito and Larkspur General Plans. Detached Two-Family Dwelling Units. The Town has indicated concern with this type of development by adopting Section 16-40.020, Exceptions for Detached Two-Family Dwelling Unit, of the municipal code. This section requires certain findings to be made in order to approve this type of development. In particular, the proposed detached development must be shown to be the preferred way to develop two units on a property zoned R-2. In the case of the Norris property it is clear that a single two unit building could be developed with less impact than would be the case due the project as proposed. The Norris project is specifically not in compliance with the provisions of Code section 16-40.0205 H, b., that states "One unit shall be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum sixty percent to forty percent ratio floor area split between the two units;" The existing unit is 1,221 sq.ft, and the proposed unit would be 1,180 sq.ft., a ratio of 51% to 49%. Inadequate Parking. The proposed project shows the minimum number of required parking spaces would be provided. However, the parking spaces as shown do not appear to meet the minimum size requirements. As I understand the proposed plan, the parking spaces would be the same as currently provided on the project site. These spaces do not conform with the Town's standards. In addition, these existing spaces are normally fully occupied under the current single unit development of the property. In fact, frequently 5 vehicles are parked on the property. EXHIBIT N0. 21 P, tor- z Letter to Tiburon Design Review Board - July 6, 2010 Page Two At as minimum, it is recommended that parking for the existing unit at 2312 Spanish Trail be developed on Spanish Trail. The existing parking on Vista Del Mar Lane could be revised to provide fully conforming and adequate parking for a second unit should a such a unit be approved. Vista Del Mar Lane is developed with between 12 and 16 feet of pavement width. There is virtually no safe parking available within the street right-of-way. The intersection of Vista Del Mar Lane with Paradise Drive does not provide adequate sight distance. The sharp turn in the Lane also provides an inadequate sight distance. The narrow width of the street combined with the occasional illegally parked vehicle reduces the ability of emergency vehicles to reach many of the properties on the Lane. Each of the listed deficiencies in the design of the Lane is reason to limit the number of dwelling units that take access from the substandard street. For all of the above explanations it requested that the Design Review Board deny the Norris project as currently proposed. ATI Sinc ely, t Robert L. Harrison EXHIBIT NO. 2 L ? Z vc z Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: robin moore [rmoore2360@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:57 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Spanish Trail "Cottage" Dear Mr. Watrous, JUL As you know, I live on Vista del Mar Lane. I am opposed to the structure that is proposed on Spanish Trail, but will really impact those of us on on Vista del Mar. I think the neighbors on Spanish Trail have no impact, we do. Please take time to visit the site. This is not a duplex by definition, it is an additional HOUSE on the same lot. I will send an official objection letter tomorrow. However, I am having an NM this week and hope I can get the letter in on time. The problem is, my right arm is numb so it is difficult to type. In the event I cannot attend the meeting, I will send a letter. Thank you. Robin Moore 2360 Vista del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 435-6330 EXHIBIT NO. Z2- 7/7/2010 July 7, 2010 Mr. Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager, Town of Tiburon J U L 43 1505Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon California 94920 RE: 2312 Spanish Trail- Norris Project I live on Vista Del Mar lane directly across from the Norris property at 2312 Spanish Trail. I am opposed to the construction of a detached two-family dwelling on this lot. It does not meet the criteria for granting an exception as specified in Section 16-2.5.4 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. Criteria(f) items 1-5: 1. Lot Area- This lot does not meet the land and structure regulations of the R-2 Zone. A de facto lot split would result in a house on a 5500 sgft parcel. The minimum lot size in the R-2 is 7500 sqft. 2. Physical Conditions- It is possible to attach the new dwelling unit to the existing structure... there are no physical impediments that require the applicants to design a separate structure. 3. Two Dwelling Unit Impacts -The proposed solution does not reduce the visual, environmental and privacy impacts on neighbors. In fact it creates severe hardships on the 3 adjacent neighbors that would not be created if a single structure design were built. 4. Permit History- There is no hardship for the applicant if the exception is denied. The existing structure is currently being used as a duplex with two dwelling units in one building. 5. Vehicular Access- Because the owner uses his garage as a storage shed, there is insufficient parking today for his 5 cars. As a result the neighbors on both Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar must deal with excess cars parking on these substandard streets. If you grant an exception you must find a way to create sufficient additional parking on the property and enforce the ]EXHIBIT NO. 2--3 P. 105:7 2- use of it. In addition, we strongly urge you to make both streets NO PARKING streets that are officially posted and enforced. There is one additional item not addressed by the criteria and it is drainage. You will also read this concern expressed by Mr. Decoursey, who is the other downhill neighbor. Whatever is built on this lot, be it attached or detached, needs to deal with the runoff in such a way that is directed into a proper curbed street drainage system instead of across our properties. Thank you for your consideration. Wally Quinn 1 Vista Del Mar 435-1062 EXHIBIT NO. 2,5 2- ot~: 2-- July 9th, 2010 Dan Watrous Planning Manager Tiburon Planning Department 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon,CA, 94920 U Re: Norris Property at 2312 Spanish Trail Members of the DRB, t +w JUL 10 Days before leaving for a planned trip back east we noticed story poles had been erected at 2312 Spanish Trail, the home of the Norris's. I was surprised because we are within 300 ft. of the subject property and we did not receive a formal notice from the Town of Tiburon of the public hearing for the building project. I went down to town on Friday, prior to leaving for our trip, to review the plans just to find out that the town hall was closed. I want to voice concerns but these concerns are just based on observations from the street viewing the story polls. 1: Is the property owner planning a lot split? It appears that there are going to be two separate structures and that the property owner may be planning a lot. split, if not now possibly in the future, creating a much higher density for the neighborhood. Is this property large enough to accommodate a legal lot split? 2: Without looking at any of the numbers, it appears that the floor area ratio may perhaps be exceeding the towns guidelines, and I would object to that. 3: Where will additional parking spaces be created for the first unit as the new addition will take over the present parking area? Vista del Mar is an extremely narrow lane and there cannot be any on street parking. The street presently does not accommodate on street parking and this project would pressure the need for additional parking. 4: 1 am concerned that the new structure has been sighted too close to Shelly Brown's house affecting her view, air and light. 5: We know that the current Norris home is already considered a 2 unit building so if the 2nd proposed structure is built, this could be considered a 3rd unit. This is a bad precedent for the entire neighborhood. What is to stop someone in the future from adding a second unit to the new proposed structure creating a 4th unit, which would be allowed in an R2 Zone. Sincerely, JJ and Jane Wintersteen 2315 Paradise Drive. Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. 2q July 9, 2010 Daniel M. Watrous LATE MAIL # Planning Manager Town of Tibuorn L 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous: I am Ann DeMartini's tenant at 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane, which borders 2312 Spanish Trail on the east side of the subject property. I am opposed to the proposed construction of a second detached house on the property largely for privacy concerns. If there are windows on the east side of the structure they would quite likely look into my back patio and onto my front deck, both of which I use on a daily basis. Furthermore, it would severely impact, ie eliminate, the view from the back patio. I also believe it would negatively impact the residential feel of the neighborhood. With one exception the lane consists of small single family or single structure per lot type, buildings. I agree with my neighbors and I feel strongly myself that it would be aesthetically and architecturally a mistake to allow a second structure on 2312. Vista Del Mar Lane is a very narrow lane and parking is already a problem. More cars would only exacerbate the issue, increasing chances of grid-lock and raising concerns about safety issues. It would also be an eyesore to have yet more cars (and sometimes boats) parked on the street, which is customary of the current owners. I hope you taking into consideration these concerns when reviewing plans for proposed construction. Sincerely, ✓C Oe-1~~~ Edmee Roeloffzen 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 889-5485 EXHIBIT No. m-5- LATE MAIL # 3 ~ 9 , 'a° • ° c► l J U L 1 2 tit, P-4-~ 1~~ EXHIBIT N0.2~ Gary L. Glover 2450 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, CA 94920 July 11, 2010 Office of Design Review 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Norris, 2312 Spanish Trail Dear Board Members: LATE m a "AIL 4 3 JUL 1' '(-"r0 The request for a second dwelling unit as presented meets the requirements of the R-2 underlining zoning and is far less intrusive then one large structure that could be permitted. The design and scale of the proposed structure is very complimentary to the existing improvements in the neighborhood. It is refreshing to see a proposal that meets the requirements of the underling zoning and is not seeking a variance. The intensity of use and traffic created would be less, then would be permitted in a single dwelling that would conform to the R-2 Zoning District. The scale, design and materials that are proposed are very compatible with the surrounding area. This proposed development is a welcomed project for the neighborhood, and I encourage your approval of the project as submitted. Thank you, a L. Gl er EXHIBIT NO. 27 L A- T July 11, 2010 Daniel Watrous Planning Manager Town -of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. JUL 1 2 Tiburon. CA 94920 Dear Dan, I received the notice regarding the Design Review for the Norris family at 2312 Spanish Trail Rd., and would like to provide some feedback regarding their plan to construct a detached two-family dwelling on this property. There are two concerns I would like to address, 1) resident parking and 2) construction parking and traffic. As you know, Spanish Trail is a narrow street with several areas in which traffic must proceed in only one direction. Currently, there are 3 cars parked on Spanish Trail Rd. from this address on a regular basis. I am concerned that an additional property will worsen the already problematic parking situation on this narrow street. I would suggest that the design review plan mandate enough parking for ALL vehicles on site, including any storage, boats, and all vehicles. This may require six or more parking spaces. In addition, this plan should require a driveway to the back so that there is immediate proximity to the back home for convenience and usage. I would separately suggest that the appropriate town committee review Spanish Trail Rd. to determine areas where parking should not be allowed. For example, the street between 2312 and 2375 narrows, and when a car is parked there an emergency vehicle would be unable to pass. This is a significant safety issue which should be addressed. My second concern is construction parking and traffic. Spanish Trail simply cannot support large trucks during the construction process. We live on a shared driveway immediately past the Norris property, and we, along with other residents, need access to our property at all times. Sincerely, Pamela Hoath 2349 Spanish Trail Rd. EXHIBIT NO. 22- Connie Cashman From: Derek Parker [derekparker42@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:32 PM To: Connie Cashman Subject: File Number 710021 For DRB comments from Derek and Nancy Parker 2351 Spanish Trail Tiburon 415 435 8893 Page 1 of 1 LATE MmIL t3 o • The project impacts traffic on two streets, Spanish Trail and Vista del Mar, both very narrow and not wide enough for on-street parking. • Curently the occupants of 2312 Spanish Trail park up to 3 cars on Spanish Trail. • A possible solution is a parking deck off Spanish Trail replacing the broken-down shed • The garage on Vista del Mar is virually unuseable and needs to be rebuilt to accomodate the additional vehicles. • The project uses up too much open space and would be better as an attached solution. • The project implies a lot split which raises questions re floor area ratio and lot coverage etc. • It will be difficult for the Town to monitor that this is in reality only a two family solution when there are already two families in place. Derek Parker Tiburon, California 415 435 8893 EXHIBIT NO. 2°l 7/12/2010 July 9th, 2010 LATE MAIL # 3 To: Bill and Joy Norris 2312 Spanish Trail Road Tiburon, Ca. 94920 Ref: Courtesy Notice Tiburon Design Review Board July 1' 2010 Assessor's Parcel No. 059-061-32 3 JUL 12 120" r Dear Bill and Joy, I wish to thank you both for taking the time this morning to explain to me in some detail your plans to build a relatively small dwelling on your property located at 2312 Spanish Trail Road. Following our discussion Barbara and I reviewed what we perceive to be your improvement options regarding this fine view property. In our opinion, the first option would be to merely make cosmetic changes to the present 75+ year old rather smallish structure. From a purely practical standpoint, this approach would not be satisfactory since it does not address the more fundamental need for more living space. The second option , as we see it, is to do a total or near total demolition of the present structure and essentially build a new and larger home on the site. Experience has shown us that these expensive projects take up to two years to complete, and often test the various building codes, particularly those dealing with height limits, square footage and set-backs. Additionally, the neighborhood is subjected to the disruptive aspects of a major demolition, excavation and a lengthy building phase. The third option , and the one that you have thankfully chosen, is in our opinion the proper one. The decision to build a relatively small, low-rise separate building seems to us to be a thoughtful compromise. Your neighbors are spared the lengthy inconvenience associated with a major building project, their primary views are protected and you are able to address the need for additional living space. Therefore, Barbara and myself as your neighbors heartily endorse your proposed building project. Best to both of you, , e Jim and Barbara Brroad 2490 Spanish Trail Tiburon, Ca 94920 EXHIBIT NO. 30 To: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager and Design Review Board Members From: Residents of Vista Del Mar Lane Re: 2312 Spanish Trail- Norris Project Date: September 27, 2010 Overview Although the address of the subject property is 2312 Spanish Trail, the proposed second dwelling unit is actually on Vista Del Mar Lane ("Lane"). Accordingly, this project affects all of the homeowners on the Lane. Because we are unanimously opposed to the second dwelling unit we decided to write a joint letter. We thought this approach would be more comprehensive and useful than separate letters and also serve to underscore our collective resolve. Since this is a request for a separate dwelling unit, the decision-making is a two step process. First, a Planning Decision must be made regarding the request for an Exception. The second step, a Design Decision, (relating to placement and design) is relevant only if the proposal meets the test for an Exception. We organized our letter with an attachment for each step as summarized below. Step 1--The Planning Decision First and foremost, the subject lot does not meet the criteria for an Exception to the R-2 Zone as described in Section 16-40 of the Ordinance. As a group we reviewed the revised Ordinance in detail and believe that, when properly interpreted from a planner's perspective, the proposal fails four of five of the required criteria. And if it does not meet the criteria, it follows that an exception cannot be granted, which logically would render moot further discussion of the project Step Z--The Design Decision The above being said, the proposal itself raises serious issues: it will exacerbate current visual density and congestion issues in the neighborhood; it will create additional privacy issues; it will reduce natural green space; and it will adversely impact property values for the long term. In conclusion We believe that good neighborhoods have a spirit of support and cooperation and genuinely regret that we are compelled to take such a negative stance. But from a neighborhood standpoint the implications and impact of this proposal are very negative. Moreover, it does not appear to us that the Norris family has been responsive to the advice of the DRB and Town Staff or the concerns of neighbors. EXHIBIT NO. IF, t OK We are open to proposals to develop the property with a conforming single structure duplex. In fact, we want to invite Mr. Watrous and all members of the Design Review Board to visit the Lane and envision the improvement that a thoughtfully designed, conforming, single structure would have on our neighborhood and property values. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Wally Quinn Sue Zimmerman JJ Wintersteen Janie Wintersteen Shelley Brown Ann DeMartini Hilda Harrison Robin Moore Terry Schwakopf Dennis Schwakopf Jerome Bernal Igor Sill Cindy Sill (See attached signature page) EXHIBIT NO. '2---- P, z- CF e Step 1--The Planning Decision Section 16-40 of the Ordinance was re-written in 2006 after the controversy caused by the building of two houses on one lot at 2355Paradise Drive/Vista Del Mar by Mr. Auregey. The Town has always discouraged the building of duplexes in two separate structures. However, the objective of the 2006 rewrite was to make the hurdles even higher and the burden of proof on the applicant more rigorous. To our knowledge this is the first request for an Exception since the Ordinance was rewritten. Technically this Exception is a land use decision, and as such, might be heard by the Planning Board. However, Town Council thought it more efficient to have this issue handled in one step at DRB instead of a two step process. That being said, when the issue is addressed by DRB, it requires the DRB member to consider the matter from the perspective of a Planner that is, to envision the highest and best use of the land irrespective of the current dwelling(s). Accordingly, it is the characteristic of the land that determines whether a lot should be developed with one structure or two. Each criterion must be discussed and acceptance or rejection of'each one must be justified and recorded in the record. We strongly urge the DRB to vote to accept or reject the application for Exception before moving on to a discussion of design and house placement. In the July 15 meeting it would have been helpful to have followed this procedure, because it provides important context for the decision making process. As noted by DRB member Tollini, the criteria are very rigorous, and Staff Planner Dan Watrous put forth excellent arguments that show that this lot does not meet the criteria for two structures. We add our own analysis as follows: 1. Lot Size-Meets criteria The lot does meet the land and structure regulations of the R-2 Zone. However, the lot is 11,000 square feet, which when subdivided yields two lots of 5,500 square feet. While the rules prohibit an actual lot split, it creates the visual impression of two houses on substandard lots, which is what we want to prevent. 2. Physical conditions-Fails to meet criteria There are no rock outcroppings, unusual topology or lot shapes that prevent the construction of a single structure duplex. This is one of the most buildable lots in Old Tiburon. Furthermore, the site planning is not superior to that of a single structure duplex. In addition, since the majority of homes in the area are single structure duplexes, there is no land use compatibility benefit derived from the proposed design. ~ r EXHIBIT No . ? S ~ v*-- S 3. Reduction of Impact -Fails to meet criteria The applicant has not even attempted to demonstrate that the two structure design reduces visual, environmental or privacy impacts when compared to a well designed single structure duplex. As a matter of fact, the design significantly affects the views and privacy of adjacent neighbors. At the last meeting there was discussion about preserving the primary view of the Whittingham home, which has self-imposed view issues by virtue of its placement low on the lot and right on the lot line. We believe that a single structure duplex could be designed that avoids view and privacy impacts on Brown, Demartini and Quinn, and preserves the views of Whittingham. 4. Permit history-Fails to meet criteria Over the years this lot was developed with multiple structures and no regard to setbacks such as: a. Violations of front and side yard setback on existing home; b. non-conforming height on existing home; c. Storage shed built in the Spanish Trail right-of-way; d. Garage built in the backyard setback; and e. Aluminum storage shed in the middle of the property. While many of these non-conformities existed before the applicant owned the property, they are self-created. All the various setback issues currently cause encroachment' problems with the adjacent neighbors that would not occur if the existing house were conforming. Because the property has so many structures on it, it is already visually dense and crowded. To grant yet another structure would be a gross aggravation of this problem. We hope that this new construction will trigger a review of existing structures and require removal of excess structures at a minimum. Having the garage separate from the proposed home adds an unnecessary additional structure. We strongly recommend that the DRB deliberate on the future implications of its decision. What if the existing primary home, which appears to be in marginal condition, is torn down some time in the near future? Would this require another exception? However, under the circumstances this would meet the definition of a "self created hardship" and as such would not meet the criteria for an exception. We suggest that if the DRB approves the Exception, they might stipulate (via deed restriction) that any future buildings be attached to this one. It is better to be transparent about the consequences and consider such issues now in the decision process, than to let it become a cause for discord and litigation down the road. 5. Parking-Fails to meet criteria While attempting to meet this criterion, the applicant has created new problems that must be dealt with. The proposed parking deck on Spanish Trail can be built only after obtaining a special variance approved by Town Council. It can be made conforming by placing it within the property line and requesting a DRB variance for front yard setback. Or the EXHIBIT NO. 31 - 4vF£{ applicant can build a retaining wall and fill in the easement and park on the easement. Under no circumstances should the applicant be allowed to build a permanent structure in an easement In both options, the storage shed must go. The garage and carport on Vista Del Mar may require a rear yard setback variance. Item 6 under "Recommended conditions" specifically states that there should be no side or rear yard setback variances allowed for the project. We respectfully request that the DRB evaluate each of the five items in detail. Once this is done we believe the DRB will agree that this LOT and project fails to meet the criteria for Exception. From a process standpoint, if an Exception is not granted the application should be dismissed until a conforming single structure design is proposed. Because we feel so strongly about this we are prepared to take this to appeal to be sure this very important decision is made correctly. We believe there has already been an inordinate negative impact with the past granting of two houses on one lot at 2355 Paradise and are resolute in our desire to preserve this crucial protection of the R-2 zone going forward. In conclusion, we believe that there is incontrovertible evidence that this proposal does not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the ordinance. Step 2--The Design decision: At the July 15 Design Review Board meeting, the DRB made three recommendations: 1. Design a more modestly proportioned house 2. Move the house up the hill and into alignment with the homes adjacent to it. 3. Provide an improved parking solution with some parking on Spanish Trail and possibly combining the parking structure with the proposed dwelling The revised plan gives lip service to these recommendations and raises additional issues as follows: 1. The new house is only 63 square feet smaller (5%). However, it introduces a larger deck space and bay window that is more intrusive to Ms. Brown's privacy. The height reduction of 1 foot makes very little impact on the size and bulk of the building or the view issues of both Brown and DeMartini. 2. The proposed house has not been moved back "to better align the structure with other homes on Vista Del Mar" as requested by Board member Kricensky. We surmise from the elevation numbers that to do so would bring the building into the primary view of the main house. 3. The proposed parking is not an improvement. The parking structure on Spanish Trail is problematic, as described in detail above. The parking garage on Vista Del Mar is not placed under the house as requested. The very large (over 475 square feet) sod roof deck over the garage is provocative. It exacerbates the issues of noise and privacy on Quinn/Zimmerman, DeMartini and Brown homes. EXHIBIT NO. 3 ~ R 50C- ? In summary, the revised plan does nothing to address the very real issues of bulk and mass, density, and privacy. It is barely a token, let alone a meaningful conciliatory gesture. Impact on Our Neighborhood There are many positives about our neighborhood; however, the downside is that it is dense and feels crowded and congested. There are two other R-2 properties on Vista Del Mar that have two structures on one lot and both exacerbate the downside of our neighborhood. It follows that one of the reasons we feel so strongly about this situation is that we are experiencing the results of past suboptimum decisions today. We do not want to continue this trend in Old Tiburon's R-2 zone, especially on one very small street. The mass and bulk and close proximity of this project to the existing homes of Brown and DeMartini would not only cause privacy issues and view impediment issues but would also cause their property value to decrease substantially due to the loss of open and green space between their homes. This is a small neighborhood and together we have accomplished much over the years to improve our street. For example, we worked with the Town to have Vista Del Mar become a dedicated street, so that we could move our mailboxes and receive postal delivery. We were able to move recycling off Paradise Drive to curbside and we created a neighborhood emergency phone tree. We all worked together for four years to get the Lyford Cove undergrounding project approved with unanimous approval from Vista Del Mar residents. In conclusion, we reiterate that as owners on Vista Del Mar Lane we ALL oppose this project in its entirety. We do not believe it meets the criteria for an Exception and we know it will contribute to feelings of density and crowding in the neighborhood for the long term. EXHIBIT NO. 3I p ~aF~ We the undersigned residents of Vista Del Mar Lane are opposed to the proposed project as stated above. date JJ Wintersteen 2315 Paradise Drive q-0/4 Ann DeMartini 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane .9 Wally Quinn One Vista Del Mar Lane Sue Zimmerman 2343 Paradise Drive Terry Schwakopf 2400 Vista Del Mar Lan Dennis Schwakopf 2400 Vista Del Mar Lan Robin Moore 2360 Vista Del Mar Lane Hilda Harrison 2370 Vista Del Mar Lane 4-~UkA- Jane Wintersteen 2315 Paradise Drive 9&n4ie U Shelley Brown 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane Jerome Bernal 2310 Spanish Trai 4-ZB-lo 4 8 /a 9w v U 9 a8 9 a8 of zqP, t" 11 ?/z r1l o EXHIBIT NO. ~ l We are open to proposals to develop the property with a conforming single structure duplex. In fact, we want to invite Mr. Watrous and all members of the Design Review Board to visit the Lane and envision the improvement that a thoughtfully designed, conforming, single structure would have on our neighborhood and property values. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Wally Quinn Sue Zimmerman JJ Wintersteen Janie Wintersteen Shelley Brown Ann DeMartini Hilda Harrison Robin Moore Terry Schwakopf Dennis Schwakopf Jerome Bernal Igor Sill Cindy Sill (See attached signature page) W V ~ '~b q Z~'I' 3 l EXHIBIT NO. P. K 0 F- September- 28, 2010 To: Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager and Design Review Board Members From: Ann DeMartini and Celia DeMartini Ann DeMartini owns the legal duplex adjacent and to the east of 2312 Spanish Trail-2323 and 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane Re: 23 12 Spanish Trail-the Norris Project Dear Mr. Watrous and the Design Review Board: My Mother, Ann DeMartini owns 2323/2321 Vista Del Mar Lane and has lived on Vista Del Mar Lane since 1958, approximately 52 years. She is certainly the oldest resident on the lane and has lived there by far the longest. My family has always been supportive of our fellow Vista Del Mar Lane neighbors and cooperative, however we can not support the current proposed design for 2312 Spanish Trail. I believe the stringent requirements for the Exception outlined in Section 16-40 of the Ordinance were established in an effort to maintain property values in Tiburon. Isn't that also what the Tiburon Design Review Board is at least partially responsible for-making sure that any new construction will not adversely effect property values and desirability of neighboring properties to the new construction? The question is what maintains property values? Certainly not increasing density and congestion in an already densely congested neighborhood; allowing the Norris project in its current design would impact green space and visual congestion as well as vehicular congestion on Vista Del Mar Lane. This can't have a positive impact on the value of neighboring Vista Del Mar Lane properties. What kind of construction at 2312 Spanish Trail could help us all maintain the values of our properties? Perhaps a design that more closely matches the neighboring properties-i.e. attached duplexes-one structure per lot. For instance perhaps values could be maintained if a project were approved and built that was a well designed expansion of the attached second unit that already exists in the original construction at 2312 Spanish Trail of course with provisions for parking split between Spanish Trail and Vista Del Mar Lane. It appears that the new design ignores your suggestions however if this current proposal were approved my Mother's rental unit will be impacted both from a view standpoint and again there would be privacy issues similar to the impacts on the Brown and Quinn properties. What are among the most marketable aspects of living on Vista Del Mar Lane? View and privacy-if 2312 Spanish Trail were approved and view and privacy are impacted then our ability to rent the unit at 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane is impacted, conceivably the unit would be harder to rent at a good market rent. As you know part of what establishes value in a two unit building is the rental income therefore the market value of my Mother's property conceivably could take a nose dive. EXHIBIT NO. 3Z 0 e Z In short in today's economic environment the last thing I would think a responsible Design Review Board would want to do is approve something that has the ability to significantly reduce property values of the neighboring properties. The Norris project in its current design not only could adversely impact the Brown, Quinn and DeMartini property values but could if approved have an adverse effect on values for all Vista Del Mar Lane properties. Frankly I was not in agreement with your suggestions generated during the July. 15"' meeting but the fact that the Norris' team basically ignored them indicates they have very little concern for what is in my opinion your mandate. You must help us maintain the value of our properties on Vista Del Mar Lane. So I strongly urge you to decline the proposed two separate structure design at 2312 Spanish Trail. Please visit Vista Del Mar Lane and take a look at the new story poles. Impacts on the neighborhood are evident once you see the pole locations. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Celia DeMartini For Ann DeMartini 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 415-924-8363 or 415-225-1793 EXHIBIT NO. 32- P. 2 of:! z SheLley N. Brown/ 2 3 0 0 Vi4ta,DelMar La+w.1 l"axwo % Cat 94920 To: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager and Design Review Board Members From: Shelley N. Brown 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane (directly next door to proposed 2nd detached home) Re: 2312 Spanish Trail-Norris project Date: September 28, 2010 On July 15, Design Review made three recommendations: 1. Design a more modestly proportioned house 2. Move the house up the hill and align with adjacent homes 3. Provide an improved parking solution First of all, the exception should NOT be granted. There is absolutely no reason why this property could not follow the revised R-2 criteria for an attached dwelling/ duplex. This has been researched and addressed in detail in the neighborhood letter signed by every homeowner on Vista Del Mar Lane. Secondly, I am appalled that the Norris family basically ignored your recommendations and disregarded your efforts to provide direction. They removed a laundry room (60 square feet), yet added a 475 square foot roof deck above the garage with direct access from the proposed home. They did not move the house back at all to align with my home and the DeMartini home. The impact on my privacy and personal outdoor space as well as the density of the buildings on this lot is completely unacceptable. From the covered front porch deck, to the view impediments from my upstairs room, to the sod roof deck above the garage, to the parking pad on Spanish trail- every part of the proposed second detached home has negatively exacerbated my privacy, view and density impact. Please come view the new story poles for this revised application. There are a significant amount of changes that is critical you see for yourselves. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Shelley Brown (435-8435) 33 EXHIBIT N0. P, i C* Y Photos of Norris 2nd DETACHED home on property: Impact on neighborhood 1. Mass and bulk of 2nd DETACHED home proposed: 2. View from Brown front steps of proposed outside living space (proposed EXHIBIT NO. P. z or_~ front covered porch) 3. Proximity to Brown/Martini 4. EXHIBIT NO. >-3 UP It S. Privacy invasion example affecting Brown front outside living space: (Covered front porch AND roof deck) EXHIBIT NU. 33 Jerome Bernal 2310 Spanish Trail Rd. Tiburon, CA 94920 September 29, 2010 Ail. j Dan Watruos Planning Manager Design Review Board Members Re: 2312 Spanish TrailRoad Members, As an immediate neighbor to the proposed development at 2312 Spanish trail, I am concerned about the proposed parking deck on the street. I can sympathize with the Norris's for the restrictions that they are going thru. Ten years ago I went thru the vary same thing, when I remodeled my home I had proposed a parking deck off of Spanish Trail. The owner of 2312 Spanish Trail at that time, Mr. Marinas, was opposed to the plan because he said that a parking deck would look into his kitchen window depriving him of privacy and that the road was to crowded and small causing further traffic problems. I was required to dig 18 feet into the rocky hillside,constructing an engineered retaining wall and bring my parking from below off of Vista Del Mar. Although the proposed deck does not appear tall from street level the deck abuts my cut into the hillside,when viewed from below it would be very towering (34ft.) from the perspective of my entrance. I feel this would not be in character with the neighborhood to allow such elevation changes so close by. I share the previous owners views on privacy and traffic. I would also hope that the members would apply the same standards for review equally and fairly when a precedent has been set by prior design review members. t , -&q,G dt"t Bernal EXHIBIT NO. 3 RICHARD WODEHOUSE 2356 Spanish Trail Tiburon„ CA, 9,4920 LATE MAIL # October 5, 2010 Board Members Tiburon DRB T,415 944 0278 rewodehouse@gmail.com RE: Norris Residence Application for a new residence on the South (Vista Del Mar), portion of their property at 2312 Spanish Trail. I am a resident at the one property that is MOST AFFECTED by the proposed con- struction. While neighbors located on Vista Del Mar may be concerned with the ad- dition of new structures on their non view side, this impact is minor compared to the potential impact a new structure could have on the uphill side towards Spanish Trail which is our primary view. I am enclosing a photo taken from our living room and another from our deck in which you can see the position of our home relative to the story poles of the proposed structure and our view towards the Golden Gate, the city and Angel Island. I have reviewed the current submitted plans and am in support of the project as it is presented in those plans. I WOULD BE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO A DIRECTIVE TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE UP THE HILL TOWARDS SPANISH TRAIL. This would be a sad mistake which would have great negative impact both on our resi- dence, and I suspect on the Norris's current home. If you as members of the design review board were to visit our home and stand in our living room and deck I am confident you would see the wisdom of not demanding they move the structure closer and higher into our primary view. As of this writing I am aware of only your one DRB member looking at the project from our home. I encourage and invite the rest of you to come and see in person prior to making a decision. You are welcome to call my cell phone to arrange a mutually convenient time. 415 944 0278 Sincerely yours, Richard Wodehouse EXHIBIT NO. - 3 ~ p. i oc= 3 r Le) 0 F--1 T f.~ .1 y .ui 0 z m p 1>1 w h1,q Southern Marin Fire Protection District 308 Reed Blvd. IRE Mill Valley, CA 94941 Phone 415 388-8182 Fax 415 388-8181 Tiburon Design Review Board To Whom It May Concern, As President of the Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire District, I personally recommend Mr. Norris' application to build a driveway at 2312 Spanish Trail Road in Tiburon. The driveway would further reduce the number of parked cars on Spanish Trail Road and facilitate fire and other emergency vehicles on the very narrow road in Tiburon. Thank you for your consideration. Scott von Stein President Board of Directors Southern Marin Fire District EXHIBIT NO. ~~(O To: Mr. Dan Watrous and Design Review Board From: Shelley N. Brown, 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane Re: 2312 Spanish Trail proposal Date: October 27, 2010 As the immediate neighbor to the Norris property on the east, I continue to be adamantly opposed to building two houses on one piece of property in the R-2 zone of Old Tiburon. I do NOT feel the exception should be granted for all of the same reasons as were stated in the prior staff reports as well as detailed letters from neighbors. I feel strongly that the Design Review Board should support their staff, which has never waivered in their determination that this proposal does NOT meet the criteria for exception. It is a violation of the Design Review Board to not make findings regarding the exception rules before discussing design elements. I am requesting that the Design Review Board reviews the exception criteria one by one to determine findings. In terms of personally addressing the design of the 4th set of plans, I want to comment on the following: 1. Spanish Trail parking deck: a. A lack of privacy and views directly into my backyard would occur with removal of trees to build the deck. b. Currently the shed/building is in the right of way. The proposal calls for a second structure to be built in this right-of-way by building a parking deck on top of the existing structure. A second structure should not be allowed in a right-of-way without the removal of the first. 2. Roofline: a. The excessive height of the building (17 feet), including dormers, seems excessive and continues to cause the building to appear massive from the street and from my property. b. This high roofline adds to the mass and density as viewed from my upstairs windows as well as from my front yard and deck. c. The roofline should be lowered more than 4 feet and/or be dug into the ground to remedy this effect. 3. Bedroom Window: a. The bedroom bay window on the east side of the house looks directly into my den and onto my front deck. -377 EXHIBIT NO. ~ ~ 0~2 4. Front deck a. The position and size of the front deck continues to affect my privacy in my front yard living space. The only change is that the roof over the deck has been removed. b. Moving the home down into the hill and back or minimizing the deck size would help to rectify this effect.. S. Landscaping: a. I would request the plans include substantial landscaping between our homes to maintain privacy as well as landscaping in front of the Spanish Trail parking pad, if approved. As I previously stated, I do not feel there have been findings made to prove that this property meets the exception rules. Tiburon town planning staff has continued to state this property does NOT meet the exception rules. EXHIBIT NO. 3-7 -TE October 27, 2010 LA MAIL # J . To: Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager and Design Review Board Members From: Ann DeMartini and Celia DeMartini Ann DeMartini owns the legal duplex adjacent and to the east of 2312 Spanish Trail-2323 and 2321 Vista Del Mar Lane Re: 2312 Spanish Trail-the Norris Project Dear Mr. Watrous and the Design Review Board: First again we must say that we feel this project does not meet the qualifications for the exception as outlined in zoning ordinance 16-2.5.4 and should be denied. We also agree with many of the Vista Del Mar Lane neighbors in that the Design Review Board needs to adopt a two step process regarding 2312 Spanish Trail. You need to first rule on the exception and whether the property qualifies as if it were without structures. Once you have determined whether or not it qualifies within the guidelines of the exception then the merits of a design can be addressed. In the meetings I have attended so far this has not been done. Basically my Mom and I feel an attached duplex could be designed and situated on the lot with adequate excavation into the hillside so that there could be minimal impacts on views and privacy for all 2312 Spanish Trail neighbors, including the Whittingham, DeMartini and Brown neighbors. The DRB must also consider that the existing structure is already a duplex, this points to the fact that it can be more than adequately accomplished on the lot. Because of the continuance on this proposal we need to comment on the new design in the most recent plan submission. We again feel that the Norris designers and Mr. and Mrs. Norris have not considered our objections to previous designs nor have they adequately implemented the past DRB suggestions. We are again concerned with view impacts and privacy issues for my Mom's second unit. The new structure similar to the last design has a 17 foot high roof on a single story structure. This is exorbitantly high and totally out of character for the Lane. It once again brings up the size and bulk issue that was previously discussed by DRB members. In addition there are windows and deck area on the east side of the design-these areas present adverse privacy impacts for our tenant and could impact my Mother's rent revenue in the future. Finally again the designed structure is not moved adequately up the hill. In the most recent submission the alignment line with the adjacent properties shows that the new building and not its deck is aligned with the deck of the DeMartini property. To adequately align this structure with our building at a minimum both the deck and building of any new construction at 2312 Spanish Trail should be behind the alignment line along with my Mother's-deck and building. To be in line with the Brown and DeMartini structures the new design needs to be moved up the hill at least 8 feet perhaps more. 3 ~ EXHIBIT NO. T . I cx~z Z It is apparent that the designers and owners of 2312 Spanish Trail have not been responsive to the Design Review Board or their Vista Del Mar Lane Neighbors. In review neither the owners nor their designers have adequately investigated the possibility of building an attached second unit on this lot, which would be a design the Vista Del Mar Neighbors could agree to and would if designed properly minimize impacts on all the adjacent neighbors. We urge the Design Review Board to heed the suggestions submitted by their staff and deny this submission. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Celia DeMartini for Ann DeMartini 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 415-924-8363 EXHIBIT NO. ,o"2- October 28, 2010 Dan Watrous, Planning Staff Design Review Board ("DRB") Dear Mr. Watrous and DRB, We, the neighbors of Vista Del Mar Lane, are writing once again to object to the Norris proposal. We are adamantly opposed to the building of a detached unit on that lot. We also have significant concerns about the process used to review the proposal. At 'sough some DRB members have made an effort to understand the Ordinance, w( ')elieve that it is critical for all DRB members to: 1. Take the time to understand the Exception criteria and process 2. Consider the findings of Planning Staff who recommended against this proposal from the outset since it does not meet the criteria for an exception 3. Engage in a clear discussion on land use before considering design concepts (To date the discussion has muddled land use and design and has not resulted in a clear decision on land use). Given the above, we believe that this matter should be referred to, the Town Council for decision. They understand the intent of the Ordinance and the significance of granting an Exception. One of the reasons the DRB may be having difficulty handling the Exception is because this involvesXland use concepts which are not typically the purview of the DRB. The DRB must interpret the Exception criteria on the attributes of the bare lot to make a proper land use decision. It does not matter that there is an existing structure on the lot; that is not relevant in granting an exception. Add to that, there is nothing in the criteria about views. So the Whittingham home is not even relevant in the decision making process. Finally, the burden of meeting the criteria rests on the applicant, so the DRB should not be leaning over backwards to make findings for them. EXHIBIT NO. 3R There is one criterion that must be met above all others. Is there some physical characteristic (e.g., a rock outcropping, a cliff, etc.) of the lot that prevents the building of an attached duplex? In this instance, the answer is absolutely not. The proscribed building envelope is free of obstructions. Although the shape is irregular, most homes in the R-2 would fit on it without variances. As mentioned above, the decision must be made without regard to the existing structure. The fact that the existing structure is essentially a teardown makes its use as criteria justification even more illogical. Both the neighborhood and the applicant would be far better served if the applicant just started from scratch and designed an attached unit that would be in the highest and best use of the lot. At the last meeting the designer came up with the unsupported claim that this was a superior design as his answer to the criteria. He has not demonstrated in any tangible way that this is so. He claims that any attachment to the existing. structure would make the lower level un-inhabitable. Most of the surrounding homes are on similar slopes and have lower levels with 1200 sf that offer both light and views (Quinn, Wintersteen, Bernal). In our own neighborhood we see homes that are examples of superior designs that would easily fit on the lot as a single structure duplex. We welcome you to come visit our homes and see for yourself. Many of us have invested considerable money improving our homes, so that the home values of all have risen. We feel that the Aurgeguy project was a mistake. A detached unit on the Norris property 50 feet away will only add to making the neighborhood feel more cluttered and claustrophobic. It will encourage other neighbors (especially the absentee owners) to do the same thing. With so many older homes in our area needing to be rebuilt, how will we prevent it? (See enclosed map). Overtime our neighborhood could have the look and feel of a trailer park-exactly what this ordinance is trying to prevent. This is a pivotal decision that determines the future character of our neighborhood. Please take the time to understand the Ordinance and interpret it appropriately. EXHIBIT NO. 39 P 2 I)Fs to EO KBIT NO. P, 3 6i:~;- Sincerely, The Neighbors on Vista Del Mar Lane Susan Zimmerman Terry Schwakopf Shelley Brown Wally Quinn Celia De Martini Aran -DEXKUS . 110-- at S lJ ,ep_cke e0et a r-t0ORF.: -T c e sTt (LI kLTA LA 6-R LL SF--~, QEYC-7 EXHIBIT NO. 3~l -p, q OF 5 Sincerely, The Neighbors on Vista Del Mar Lane Susan Zimmerman Terry Schwakopf Shelley Brown Wally Quinn Celia De Martini EXHIBIT NO. 3'l P, saw To: Dan Watrous, Planning Department and Design Review Board Members From: Vista Del Mar Lane neighbors RE: Norris property 2312 Spanish Trail Date: November 24, 2010 We, the neighbors who live on Vista Del Mar Lane in Tiburon, continue to be opposed to the Norris proposal to build a DETACHED single family dwelling at 2312 Spanish Trail (re: plans dated 11/22/2010). We are summarizing these concerns for you. 1. The application does not qualify for an Exception to the Ordinance a. The findings have not been made by the applicant. We have a rebuttal to the applicant's letter dated 11/22/10 that provides ample evidence of this. In this letter you will see how he has rewritten the Ordinance to suit his needs. b. This is a land use decision. It creates a new pattern of land use and increases visual density. It sets in motion a change in the character of our neighborhood which has been duplexes built as single structures. c. Our interpretation of the Ordinance i. Lot size: meets criteria..sort of 1. 11,000 sf lot 2. Meets 7500 sf minimum for duplex 3. But, it creates visual density of 5500sf per lot ii. Physical conditions: fails to meet 1. Lot has no physical obstacles preventing an attached duplex 2. Treating the existing house as an obstacle is not a valid argument - , 3. We can show that an attached duplex is a superior design compared to two structures. (See Strawman Design) iii. Reduction of impact: fails to meet 1. We can show (See Strawman Design) that an attached duplex creates fewer impacts on views and privacy of adjacent neighbors iv. Permit history: fails to meet 1. The poor condition of the exisiting structure is being used as a reason for not attaching the proposed structure. 2. We feel that this is a self-imposed hardship v. Parking: fails to meet 1. Spanish Trail parking deck in the Right of Way 2. Requires approval by Town Council d. DRB has ignored the conclusion of the staff report. Why? EXHIBIT N0._ L4 D i cF7 2. Design concerns: a. 16 foot roofline is excessive for a 1,000 sf house. i. What is the real intent? ii. This is sufficient height to build 2 stories b. Has NOT moved front of house back out of the view lines of adjacent neighbors Brown and DeMartini i. Viewline between Brown and DeMartini houses should go house to house, not deck to deck ii. Privacy to both homes impacted by positioning c. Large patio on side of house impacts Brown privacy d. Covered porch has been added i. Not included in square footage ii. Adds to bulk of building iii. Should only be added if house is moved back e. Landscaping between DeMartini and Brown homes not addressed f. Poor design i. Architectural styles of new and existing structures are very different ii. Looks like 2 separate owners and therefore a lot split iii. New house looks larger than existing house Other: 1. What is long term design plan for this property? a. At least in the Aureguy plan we were able to see the style, size and placement of both homes before making a decision b. If approved, guidelines and restrictions MUST be imposed for the renovation of the existing house c. Existing house is in poor condition and will be needing approvals for rebuilding in near future Finally, we want the Design Review Board to visit the Brown and DeMartini homes to view the feasibility of an attached unit to the existing Norris home as shown in our Strawman Design. Signatures : Jerome Bernal, 2310 Spanish Trail / at r Shel] y Brown, 2300 Vista Del Mar Lane aye CeJ% De ini, for Ann 'ni, 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane Date U 1251(c) EXHIBIT NO. q C) P 2 oF7 Hilda Harrison, 2370 Vista Del Mar Lane Date Robin Moore, 2360 Vista Del Mar Lane Date Wally Quinn, One Vista Del Mar Lane Date 11-28-10 Terry Schwakopf, 2400 Vista Del Mar Lane Date Dennis Schwak f, 00 ista Del Mar Lane Date jj Wintersteen 1S aradise Drive Date Jan' intersteen, 2315 Paradise Drive 4 - Date < < oZ $1L~ Sue Zimmerman, One Vista Del Mar Lane Date EXHIBIT NO. 4b 6F- ? REBUTTAL TO APPLICANT'S LETTER Attached vs. Detached Two-Family Dwelling Rebuttal (in red) Norris Residence 2312 Spanish Trail Tiburon 11.22.10 16-3.3.2 Criteria for Approval states "Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; OR the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. 1. Both of these criteria are met: 2. Physical conditions on the lot means both the conditions of the lot and the conditions of any improvements on the lot and/or affecting the lot. This would include the existing house and the adjacent house at 2356 Sp. Trail. a. "Physical conditions" does not include the existing improvements on the lot or any adjacent property. It solely refers to physical impediments on the lot itself. Therefore, references to the existing house are irrelevant. 2.1 The lot is long and narrow, extending street to street with access from both streets. This lot does not merit any special consideration. •11/20 R-2 lots in our area are narrower than the smallest part of Norris lot *Of total 20 homes in our area 13 have street to street lots. 2.2 The existing house is at the narrowest point of the lot •According to the ordinance, the existing house is irrelevant. 2.3 It has existing non-conforming setbacks on 3 sides. •According to the ordinance, the existing house is irrelevant. 2.4 The setbacks are such that there is only 1 side that can accommodate any addition without a variance. *According to the ordinance, the existing house is irrelevant. 2.5 The 1 available side is the one that would most negatively impact the views and privacy of 2356 Sp. Trail. •2356 Spanish Trail has a deck height of 131.8'. The prevailing natural land is at 120'. With minor excavation, a full story with a normal roofline could be placed in the view corridor without disrupting views from Spanish Trail. However, we can show that when the new unit is attached to the old unit, no intrusion into the view corridor is necessary. 2.6 The existing floor plan can be demonstrated to be incompatible with an addition that blocks all view, light, access and egress from the lower story, creating 4) EXHIBIT NO, P. q OF? wasted space that would have to be added to the new construction to maintain the same allowed square footage. •This is an unsupported claim. Lower story is only 582 square feet and has a view that is obstructed by the Magnolia tree. In an attached design this area can be used for non-view usages such as storage, mechanical, bathrooms, laundry etc. Any new rooms attached in front of this would have light, view and access to outdoors. Without the magnolia tree, these rooms would have bay views. 2.7 Any attached roof, other than flat, in that location would nearly eliminate all views from the living room of the 2nd floor of the existing house. •With proper design of attachment, views from deck of living area (el. 133') would be unobstructed. Furthermore, living room, dining room, bedroom deck over flat roof of proposed attached area living space would enhance desirability of existing home. In addition, a minor excavation to lower the attachment would allow for sloped roof. 2.8 A flat roof would be incompatible with the architectural style of the existing house. A flat roof would be higher than the floor level of the adjacent house and directly in its view towards the GG Bridge. •see 2.7 above. The deck height of existing house is 133 vs 131.8 on the deck of 2356 Spanish Trail. Plus, it is not in the view corridor. 2.9 Any probable attached plan would remove mature landscaping including a large magnolia tree that screens the existing 3-story house from views from below, thereby increasing the visual impact. •proposed structure is appx. 1000 sq. feet. Attaching same square footage could be designed in an "L" shape to preserve the magnolia tree and much of the mature landscaping. 2.10 The existing house is in very poor condition and any attachment would necessarily trigger massive repairs and structural upgrades and the possibility of complete demolition due to exceeding the 50% limitation on remodeling. •It is possible to build an addition with a separate foundation. 3. Site planning for an attached unit is problematic: a detached unit would result in a superior product and enhance the neighborhood values. a. The ordinance reads "or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot:" b. Applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate benefits c. Our strawman design shows superior design through attachment 3.1 Access and egress, light and views are superior in a location closer to Vista Del Mar. •Access and egress, light and views are not part of the ordinance. However, our "Strawman design" (available to DRB Monday) shows identical access and light and doesn't affect the privacy and views of neighbors. 3.2 Parking is more convenient to a lower location. 3.3 Yard space and landscape screening between the units is better with separation. EXHIBIT NO. 4D 56F-) *With Strawman design, main entrance and private yard for Upper unit is Spanish Trail. Main entrance and private yard for Lower unit is Vista Del Mar. This provides more space and privacy to each home than a detached solution. 3.4 Existing hedge screening between this lot and 2300 can be maintained while achieving valuable GG Bridge views without affecting the privacy of either neighbor. *In Strawman design, existing hedge would remain. 3.5 Separating the units allows more design flexibility in terms of architectural style. Matching the 40s stucco style of the existing house is not a good option. *With proposed conflicting architectural styles (one 40s stucco style, other Cape Cod) there is no architectural continuity of the project. Further, it enhances the notion to someone driving by that they are owned by separate people. Thus, perpetuating the idea that it must be OK to build a house on a 5500sf lot in Tiburon. 3.6 A probable attached scenario would result in a 60' plus long side elevation in a constricted area of the site. When viewed in elevation this would be an unattractive massing of elements that is out of context with, the small cottage feeling of the original neighborhood. •This scenario would result in a 17' wide by 60' long addition which no architect would ever design. There are many other options. Our neighborhood is full of prime examples. 3.7 Two smaller units are more compatible with the neighborhood that 1 larger unit. *There are 8 out of 9 duplexes that are attached in the neighborhood. 3.8 By separating the units and allowing a new cottage the property would be less likely to be developed in the future in a less compatible fashion. Any new house replacing the existing one would of necessity be located farther down the lot in order to avoid multiple variances. A new single family dwelling of 3100 sf. would result in a 3-story house having a far greater visual impact that this proposal. By approving this proposal future development will be limited to repairs and upgrades within the current envelope of the existing house. •Unless there are restrictions placed on the renovation of the existing house, anything is possible in the future. We strongly urge the DRB to consider restrictions on future development to correct any incompatible architectural style, size and placement issues introduced by the approval of this project. 4. The existence of a 2nd unit already established within the existing house is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is practical or feasible to have an attached unit. To do so would unfairly restrict the owner's right develop the property in a way that is allowed by the zoning ordinance because an attached solution would necessarily have to be much smaller than allowed in order to overcome the conditions and restrictions described above. EXHIBIT N0. P, & DF~~ •It does not have to be much smaller. Norris has requested 1000sf and we have shown in our Strawman proposal, how 1000sf (or more) can be attached as a second unit. In this proposal, we have also shown how the privacy of the two units on the lot would be enhanced over two detached units. S. There is no incentive for an owner to substantially improve an extremely poor parking situation if full use and enjoyment of his property is restricted or denied. •The parking needs of this property must be addressed regardless of development or no development. EXHIBIT N0. ~'O -P, -7 C'>F~ November 29, 2010 LATE MAIL# Daniel Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA Dear Dan, I received another notice regarding the Design Review for the Norris family at 2312 Spanish Trail Rd. This is my second letter addressing their construction plans. I continue to have concerns about 1) resident parking and 2) construction parking and traffic. Spanish Trail is very narrow, and current parking between 2312 and 2375 narrows the street to such a degree that cars have difficulty passing. Secondly, the Norris's request to build a parking deck immediately adjacent (0 feet setback) to this narrow corridor seems dangerous. This parking deck would also be located between two heavily used "shared driveways", with five or six households on each driveway. I strongly urge the Design Review committee to visit this site prior to approving any such request due to the narrow streets, the need to maintain emergency vehicle access, the need to maintain auto safety, and the need to keep this area accessible to all residents who live beyond this site on Spanish Trail. In addition, if the committee decides to approve this plan, I request that the design review board include conditions re: parking and construction which would NOT BLOCK driveways and would allow residents/emergency vehicle access to homes at all times. Such conditions should be built into any approval process, and an emergency phone number provided if these conditions are violated. This street includes individuals who are elderly, residents going to work (including physicians who may need to leave), residents who have appointments and airline reservations, children attending school, etc. Finally, I strongly urge the appropriate town committee to paint several curb areas along Spanish Trail to prevent parking which could block emergency vehicles. Any construction along this corridor would make an already difficult situation worse. S' ely, Mr~ Pamela Hoath 2349 Spanish Trail Rd. EXHIBIT NO. I-EEGIN • RRISON I SCHOPPERT SMITH & KARNER LLP LA"I E MAiL # ATTORNEYS AT LAW D Stafford L 1. Kee0 Robert L. Harrison JAN 13 zolo let(rey S. Schoppert January 13, 2011 Paul C. Smith TOWN CLERK Jessica Kanner TOWN OF TIBURON VVendv L. Wyse Deborah IN1iller Mack Hank Edson Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council Nicole Hank Edson Cabalettc Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard OF COUNSEL Tiburon, California 94920 Damon N1. Connolly Kip Evan Steinberg Re: Norris / 2312 Spanish Trail Derek A. tVdIer Appeal of Design Review Board Decision Nlatil-ick N. White Dear Mayor Slavitz & Members of Tiburon Town Council: Summary We are assisting the applicants, William & Joy Norris, regarding the neighbors' appeal of the Design Review Board's ("DRB") approval of the site plan and architectural review application for 2312 Spanish Trail. The appeal alleges that the DRB improperly approved a detached two-family dwelling unit exception and objects to certain design elements. The applicants contend that the DRB properly determined through a lengthy and detailed process that (1) the code requirements for the detached two-family dwelling unit exception were satisfied and (2) after significant revisions, the design was the best possible solution for this property. The Norris application necessitated a rather technical analysis due to the request for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception in the R-2 zone, the first such request under the revised ordinance. The review required careful analysis of the standards contained in Tiburon Municipal Code ("TMC") section 16-40.020. The DRB held four separate meetings before unanimously concluding by a 5-0 vote that the application met all of the criteria in TMC Section 16-40.020 and that the design was consistent with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, we respectfully request denial of the appeal. The Ordinance Although attached two-family dwelling units are more common in the R-2 zone, the very existence of TMC Section 16-40.020 represents a recognition of the fact that there are circumstances where detached units are the superior planning alternative. The TMC allows for discretion and flexibility to approve detached units where the criteria can be satisfied and where it is shown to be the superior planning solution for a particular property. Specifically, the criteria required pursuant to section 16-40.020 are as follows: Courthouse Scuare • 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 600 • San Rafael, California 94901 • Telephone (4 15) 456-4000 • Fax (4 15) 4S6-1 92 1 • ~vmv.kcc,-linharrison.com KEEGIN • 1 MMSON I SCHOPPERT SMITH & KARNER LLP Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council January 13, 2011 Page 2 1. The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate two detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-created nonconformity, or other pattern of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this section. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets. The stated purpose of the detached two-family dwelling exception is: to limit approval of such uses to lots where the applicant has successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and where the detached units will result in a demonstrably superior site planning solution as compared to a probably attached two-family dwelling." (See TMC § 16-40.020B.) This section further provides that: "The town recognizes that limited instances may occur where a detached two- family dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot or due to the specific nature of a lot's immediately surrounding pattern of development." (See TMC § 16-40.020A.) The Process It is in this context that the DRB carefully and methodically reviewed the application over a series of four meetings to ultimately conclude that the applicants had in KEEGIN • HARRISON I SCHOPPERT SMITH & KARNER LLP Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council January 13, 2011 Page 3 fact successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and showed that a detached two-family dwelling was a demonstrably superior site planning solution in this instance. It took all four meetings and significant revisions to the project by the applicants before the DRB was able to unanimously conclude that all five of the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception had been satisfied. Before the July 15 DRB meeting, staff felt that the application satisfied criteria numbers 1 and 4, but failed to satisfy criteria numbers 2, 3 and 5. (See 07/15/10 DRB Staff Report, pages 6 and 7.) At the July 15 hearing, Vice Chair Tollini and Board member Weller concluded that the project as proposed did not at that time meet two of the five criteria. (See 7/15/10 DRB Minutes, page 8.) After the October 7 DRB meeting and further revisions to the project, staff felt that three of the five criteria for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception had been satisfied. (See 11/04/10 DRB Staff Report, pages 3-5.) The minutes of the November 4, 2010 DRB meeting clearly reflect that the Board members continued to carefully consider the criteria required by TMC section 16- 40.020F. For example, Board member Emberson concluded: the lot is an adequate size to support two separate units." physical conditions on the lot make it difficult to attach the unit to the older house...." it was possible to meet the criteria for two separate detached units, but she was unsure whether the proposed unit was the right detached unit for this lot." (See 11/04/10 DRB Minutes, page 6.) Board member Weller concluded: the applicant could demonstrate the site planning superiority of the detached dwelling unit." (See 11/04/10 DRB Minutes, page 6.) Vice Chair Krincensky concluded: there are physical conditions existing on the lot that make it impractical or difficult to build an attached unit, KEEGIN • 1 1ARRISON I SCHOPPERT SMITH & KARNER LLP Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council January 13, 2011 Page 4 the site lends itself to two units, but he said he could not approve it without a clear argument showing why it does not work to connect the units." (See 11/04/10 DRB Minutes, page 6.) Board member Chong concluded: the two-structure option made sense and would impact neighbors the least." (See 11/04/10 DRB Minutes, page 6.) Chair Tollini summarized the Board's position at that time as: "Chair Tollini said that the Board appeared to be generally in consensus that it was possible to approve two separate dwellings on this site in terms of the ordinance requirements. (See 11/04/10 DRB Minutes, page 7.) Board member Emberson agreed that the project met the criteria for two detached homes. Vice Chair Krincensky said that he could potentially support two structures, but the applicant needed to demonstrate the difficulty of an attached structure. Board member Weller referred to the criteria which states that the applicant must demonstrate why an attached unit will not work, and he said that the Board had not received sufficient information in order to draw such a conclusion." (See 11/04/10 DRB Minutes, page 7.) The above quotes from the November 4 DRB Minutes clearly show that, as of that meeting, the Board had not yet reached a consensus that all of the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception were satisfied, but they were carefully analyzing the project and requesting additional information to determine if in fact the required criteria could ultimately be satisfied. The Staff Report for the December 2, 2010 DRB meeting focused only on criteria numbers 2 and 3, and stated: the Board determined that the project was consistent with the other criteria contained in section 16-40.020 for review of a detached two-family dwelling unit exception. The Board had also indicated that it could make the findings necessary for the variance for a reduced front yard setback." (See 12/02/10 DRB Staff Report, page 5.) KEEGIN • HARRISON I SCHOPPERTSMITH &KARNERLLP Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council January 13, 2011 Page 5 Accordingly, as a result of the three prior DRB meetings, the Board had reached consensus that three of the five criteria required for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception could be satisfied. At the December 2, 2010 hearing, the Board members again reviewed the project as revised by the applicants, and concluded that all of the criteria required for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception had been satisfied. They went on to very carefully explain the basis upon which they made that determination. For example, the Minutes show that Vice Chair Krincensky concluded: the lot area is adequate to accommodate iwo units, but attaching a unit to the existing residence raises issues." an attached unit would limit the usability of the existing rooms on the lower floor, "He tried several ways of looking at attaching a second unit and found that, architecturally, all of the solutions would look bad." "He said that he also looked at a partially-attached unit that would be functional but would appear as a four-story building and would be visually massive." "He said that the narrowness of the lot and the location of the neighbor's house right on the property line would likely affect the neighbor's view corridor in some way." "In his opinion the detached unit made more sense and he thought that the smaller cottage would fit the lot." (See 12/02/10 DRB Minutes, page 4.) Board member Chong concluded: "He said that the two structure solution would have fewer impacts on neighbors and would provide better access to parking and improved livability for the residents." "He said that this project was consistent with the criteria for detached units and felt that an attached project would be an inferior option by far." (See 12/02/10 DRB Minutes, page 4.) Board member Emberson agreed, concluding: the site area is adequate for two separate units." the physical conditions include what currently exists on the lot, and the existing house should be taken into account." "She did not think the attached solutions were as attractive as the two structure solution." "She said that there are physical conditions existing on the lot that make it impractical to attach the two units, as that attaching a second unit would cause architectural problems and could impact views for the home at KEEGIN • i LAMSON I SCHOPPERT SMITH & KARNER LLP Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council January 13, 2011 Page 6 2356 Spanish Trail." "She said that the conditions of the existing house would make it impractical to connect a second unit, and it would look like a huge four- story building." "She said that the detached unit would be smaller in scale, have a lower roof line, would appear smaller visually." "She said that there is no self- created hardship due to the existing lower floor second unit and that the parking would also be improved in the current plan." "She said that she could make the findings that the project was consistent with the required criteria and that the project would look better for the neighborhood." (See 12/02/10 DRB Minutes, pages 4-5.) Board member Weller also agreed, concluding: "In his view, this particular site merits two detached structures for access and site planning reasons." "He wanted to be very clear the Board was not establishing a precedent in this decision and this decision pertains only to this particular site." "He stated that physical conditions make attached units less than desirable and the proposal demonstrated the site planning superiority of detached units on this site." "He felt that all of the plans that would create attached units would create a massive structure that would not be compatible with other homes in the vicinity." (See 12/02/10 DRB Minutes, page 5.) Chair Tollini summarized: that he appreciated the thoughtfulness the Board and staff have put into this project to distill the main issues, and even with the various viewpoints the Board appeared to be coming to the same conclusions." "He said that there are many reasons on the record establishing compliance with the criteria that physical conditions on the site render an attached unit difficult or impractical and demonstrate the site planning superiority of detached units on this lot." "He thought that the impacts on the neighbors would be reduced by having two separate units." "He did not think that the point of the statute was to try to connect units with a breezeway." (See 12/02/10 DRB Minutes, page 5.) After making the above comments, the Board voted unanimously, 5-0, to approve the application with the exception for a detached two-family dwelling unit. During each of the four separate DRB meetings, the Board addressed design issues related to the structure itself. As a result, the applicants proposed numerous revisions, KEEGI • HARRISON I SCHOPPERT SMITH & KARNER LLP Mayor Slavitz and Members of Tiburon Town Council January 13, 2011 Page 7 including moving the structure back, removing the garage, moving a bedroom to the rear of the structure, reducing the pitch of the roof, burying the structure into the hillside, reducing the size of the front porch, and substantially reducing the overall size of the structure. The result was an improved design that minimized impacts on neighboring properties while still providing the applicants with a viable and desirable structure. Conclusion All in all, the DRB served the community well in balancing all parties' interests and ending up with a substantially improved design. The DRB did an excellent job in analyzing this application and fulfilled its responsibility in enforcing the Town's municipal code requirements while considering the practical constraints of the property at issue. The request for a detached two-family dwelling unit exception made this application a bit more technical than some, but the DRB members carefully worked their way through the code requirements and ultimately reached a unanimous conclusion resulting in a superior planning solution for this property. This property presents an excellent example of why the detached two-family dwelling unit exception exists in the code, and the DRB should be commended for recognizing this fact. For all these reasons, the applicants respectfully request that the Town Council deny the appeal. Respectfully submitted, Paul C. rth PCS/glc (471701) LE RCE 25568 R .5588 19376 Linden Street -Linden Street Sonant, CA 95746 707.939.0240 roger@RogerHartley.com - - - - 1 r _ \ ~.r..------ 4 DRB SUBMITTAL JULY 5, 2010 y'~M 1 ~ W - U T z f. ~,1. W M 0 w A x N , ~ U vim, 0 az z No (n N ~i ATTACHED UNIT DESIGN WITH SLOPED ROOF N pq 4 ~ z 1 _ ~ ..m ,r J ~ n N- y 4 t `rich 4l! ~a~..hl r ~r t ' t ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Vii.., t ~ ~ r ~ ;:ti ° crt t 1~, ~ ~f f° i DRB SUBMITTAL NOV 4 2010 1 . 4, 1 : ~ ? t, Na 25588 I ,A?.; -i5~,yac,s~ Erp 12-31-11 F ti ~ JF QV1L F t. \ OF CqL\ r ~ ISSUE DATE: un~2aio -__._"»~-r~ ~ i t _ ~ PRDV'f DATE: ►nsaou ~ _ ~ - ~~i _ i' " , ~ ~ ~ REVISIONS ~ l k ~ . . n i ~ C..~- r ~ t , ~ a'' ~ - ~ 11 ~ _ ~ - . S - ~ - ~ I Bi118c J Noma - - oY ~ til ~ PROJECT EVOLUTION ,r ` r,' ATTACHED UNIT DESIGN WITH FLAT ROOF ~ 5 ~ SHEET 7I+ 3 APPROVED DESIGN DEC 2, 2010 ' i ' _ ~ / ~ ~ 1, a a ~ ~ / l r 1 E *,~,.._...w ~ x ti k -i + ~ , ~ ~ ,e E, t ~ k ` ;x ,jai! . 'i! P p~`. ,aPt. i ~ a , ~ M~ A 1 t . i t r ~ ^+r++w,iia,V ~ ~ 1 ~y. ~ f r. f F r ~ / s ~ ~ R { { ~t 1 ~ _ 616 ~ ~ ~ ~t • ~ • 1. . 1 1 • ~ ~ i ~ +1 ~.Iw ~ R h ~ r ..'s" z t ~y r ~ i ~ i r • r~ ~ ~ + h w .d' . ~ i y~; :`q N~ A 1 k° ~ ~ r~ ~r i ~ , e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a M. a ~ 7~ ~ ' ~ ~ '~x~ ~ , ~ ~,.a P{ { [ f ~ 1 ' Irs ~ t k ~ f i" W- VE N A AER AL I LE I , r / ~c ~ N W v1 al~ D z Cn r r y J CYa15"'G:i !"f 0 C O 7 0 A O C 3 A Z O • D c~ i 'rte C C S S ~ CD (D Cl) (D N d4 ~ O rp (D Orq r-r O 0 rD O C A e-t n e-+ 0 0 r+ 0 r.+ "MI cD U;' r+ 0 c 0 r+ r+ CD • N F91 fD (D IMI 3 n n r~ 0 MON 0 • 5 n rat' O r..r. a- z 0 In c J~ ' v/ cu 0 OMN cD 0 Mol CL LV l 1 rD orq (D CL rt (D i.V 0 0 r) rD V) i 0 0 CU m 0 c n O n m N C MMI e-h • r+ rD r+ T~ r V CL rD 0 h r+ rD z 0 "MI 73 r+ 0 O c ~.V V M n0 ~.u 7 rt 0 MMS 0 CL ro 0 V') 0 MMI 0 0 fD fD~ LAO 0 Z6` r ~ t 3iI hy'e y s Ia e ~ ` Z r 1~r . ~ `:.tea ~z~ n ^ dL 1 ~ a t w ~ 1 Je` r" C7 y c m n 77 O r-r fD C O O Q N I -I I II C D I x rD + r m X r) CL n Moo 0 rD rD -1 < 0 rD CL ~ o =r + CL =3 rD rD - r+ Cl) o r+ -0 r u, C) cu CL CU o f-+ 3 3 rD O ° ~ ° C o ~ cr cu - 3 0 ~ - o --h rD 3 0 o ~ rD rD - rD N 3 o N ° r+ = o (D 0 o 0 c rD n rD a) - rD =r r+ ° -h r-r V) =r CL Ln r* 1 =r* (D 3 - cu N ~ 3r ' < C ° n a CD (A 3 OC Q 0 CA rD r 0 n~ 7C) n =r 0 0- (A rl+ =S CL 0 0 Do. - a) cu < CA Do. V) 3 A CL rD • f-+ rD (A n C. 0 ° !CL = ` -l 0 ` n roooto o : In rD rrt X Ln rD 0 to (D r-h r+ C: o rD o r-f Di -0 O fD r+ 0 I I N N O O O O Q1 z ~ O O C~ D O (D - cl) r+ O (D < 0 0 -tl -fi r+ r+ (D (D X X CD 0 n O n rD rD 0 rD Omni rD O h cD m x n rD 73 e+ O I N O O W D m a~a D m n mm~ m r+ S rD 3 . CL gin' can rD cn rD 0 p 001 Ln - • Cr rD < rD v' sv to m r) a - W V) + e-t ~l w< rD (D OL) a) c 0. r+ CL rD - rD O C: n --t, r* rD < 3 < cr 3 rD cu Cl. rD + o r cu CL 7C3 3 cu 0 ~ -0 ~ r (A (A D O p aq rD n O O cl) r) cr e.+ rD O o CL C 3 WQ o 0 V) OL) cn CL O cr CD c p Orq p orq - CL < N f.+ orq ~ ~ r o < r-+ r+ 0 - rD D p wic C I'MA! s I b. G Z. i m` , iY) if y O QOS n ~ OOH a~ n m D (D N O r=r O Orq D r+ r+ v n fD Q t~j --4j to y ~ O 4 N O (D N OrU m (D G r-r O v tz O S e w~ IT. o z O, N ,m ao NI ;I m n co o n' i D r+ n N Q O ~D N O~qT O O -v v z (D x H 7 o 6' N ~t s i -Wt w m r: X r- . G) 2 O ~o c 00. !m 10 ;v A ~ FMAO I- o i D (D n XM 0 m X V), r-r 0'Cl 2 O rD r O O 0~.1 O O N a~ v 0 D n 77 0 0 r+ 3 rt x o~ m cu n rD 0 O cD a►~ rD rD O rD O -h cD O CL 0 rD O a- CL CL rD O 0 0 rD 11 w O O O D rD O O 0 (D. O O O CL I D rD a) CL CL rD Lf) rD N' O CU CL c rD X %%j Ln O O (n' _3 3 c 3 O I 3 X O Ln 3 Ln rD (A cu O - Ln N L O O aq -F, O O O N cu CD F+ S O m rn ~v r-t• rD crn 0 E (7D 0 rt zy` rD a) r'+ cn Os r-f o cu r-+ O D 3 QJ C(D~ 0 rt .~=r, rD 3 C L o rrt rD Cu rD rD r* rD r+ 0 • r- r-+ o (A Ca CD rD r+ (D cn (D fD r-f- CL , (D n o - r --I 3 cu rD r-t o cu D rD a ,r.,. e / /q i • rD V , ` .J ca. X rD • i s r-+ ® r+ C: o 3 m D sue. -O -0 r--~ ~ ~ rD 3 rD o i 0' r D III fD • o COO rD 0 o ~ (7 em+ :tt NJ O I D . ' cr - • -0 3 Ln p 0 CL ca (D . -0 - * r N CL ~ - n (D n rD -h ~ N rt cD ~ Q. ~ . 3 r-i- C (D V'7 N r-+ cD ~ ~ (D cD 7C3 ° O - n (D w 3 - • cu O rD oj '0 x Q (D -h (D N O _ ( ~ 0 rr+ 0) r.+ 3 o (D 0 r+ (D n cn O I cu N 3 cu ma Z T cn =r p e-+ O (D y f-f ~ O O r+ m r 3 Ln rt x n _ I r+ ° D -n . O O p C ~ Z3 ~ 0 + 3 -0 - • _ I - 3 w 3 u . cu 0 (D (D W C: =r CL - O =r m 3 (D • O --h -a 0 f = p (D C: rD C) (D X 3 rt " 0• -1 O e t , Z3 CL . 3 V) 1 rD OIQ n 77" r i 0 (D V) • . r-t • • I D 1 1 C) c~ 9 W y r+ /V N D O O 3 T 0 D rt v n < rD rD V) (D (7 ~ N rD rt N C rD n 0 _ 0 Dq • n _ n O rt _ cr r.+ rrDD rD -0 rD Q m r7 rD LA 3 Q rp rD M a~ 3 w rD cu f-+ N W 3 rD O (DD E75 w CA U W = CA m < CL 0- ~n r-+ r+ . O N n rr rD pr~q a :3 =3 rD c n D `D z CL O O X -0 ' o rD MD R nr o~ -0 orq •N a a 010 I fD -3 M ~ . Cr' w u c- c w C7 f-+ (D ~ D ~ cD D M = rD rD O =3 cn rD < rD cn rD N o rt c O= n < a' w rD N ~ o Q0 (D n (A ~ C f: L O rf O .-=r r D (DD 0 O Q~ D a) ' = rD rD rD ~ N CL O Q M 4t C U =3 ~ rD M r~ C)7 cn ~ N c - W w - w . rD ~ M Q rD :3 • . rD ~ = ~ Q < can r~ < • D r+ rD CL • 0 rD n rD CL • • c• cn `O. CD CD CD CC Z CD O clz O CD O 3 c cc CD N 3 rt n CD N co I D ri- Oo ~o =3 p n cu C O rD c an -a 3 rD r- -0 CL x O X Q rD ~ 0 17" rD _ O N rp O 0. CD- rl+ n C O p r* -3 O 3 N x rD (D gin' = O O aq rD 3 cu rD n rD O I O o n ' ' rD rD e+ 07° 70 D0ZDi r+ rD -I n O I I ~O C7r3 -0 O CD °~M °oW ° ° om~? °c x o m = rD N n * O c fD O T3 rD 3 m SR (A M (D -0 r-r N (D ra+ x C a n Oro N• Or4• m O r+ (D ? m V) CL rD 0 0-0 a) r+ (D 3 OQ ~ N cn' r+ O :3 fD. ~ a, cn' O ~ C ~ ~ M m- =r C: M O T p O O Q. M N fD prp 'a n r+ O p' N Orq a r•r rt M Cr cn' F n 3 N -h a, cn O: r+ :3 rl+ =r orq 0 r+ a~ O O M :3 m (D ~ Q 0 rb z (A 1 n 4* N n D rD x rD 0 z rD aq :r cr 0 0 0 • D r+ C: 0 po n CC c-+ rD -s O C CIL) O n rD r+ (D rD MI CL r) cr m ° CL (D n A: 3 r-+ O v rD o 3 FD (D ~ 0 ~D U) rD 0 o O 3 Q. ~ cu r~ r+ FU 0 O (on rD x ° o ° o n MON 3 3 o. ~D O O rr CD cD o CL w D. ors < < CD ~ 3 cry (D 3 3 ~ ~ 0 MON D C cu _ . C c -cz 3 Q Z_ rb rt C7 ~D W D 0 rD 0 3 0 X n O on r. O 3 C 0 n LO rD O -h CD r+ W -lh • cy) fD rm+ -I r-h C -h MM n r+ I O C: (D 3 (D f. O C O C (D 0 ~ =3 rt I O 0 r~ D (-D :E a cp = n CL (D. 3 O ~ ~ 3 r+ ELO N • ~o -h ( rn D X . r-+ _ =3 Ora O C- Ln (D W LrI r+ • • . :E (A rD O 0 = (D #X-+ 3 rD u n (D r-t c: 3 O (TQ ~ n -s rp ~ O D l C r n F+ ' rD O = o Q = = r,+ (D C -h Q r+ fD e-+ rD =3" cn O r+ . D r+ CL CL Ora • 0 fD rt n CL CL rD D 3 cu con cD ry. 7C' fth ftk Q)L rr~ Z rt3 rb n cD zu w D 01-; ~VK tw 1 A;*- kr K O r+ r-r n m e"F n C)7 D r+ a~ n 3 aMmii (J) r"+ r) r-t CD ~ G ~G fD Q -'F1 0 3 N (on r'+ 0 0 Ul 0 3 r+ r~ 0 X n fD 0 D • 0 rD I I I 7 as 0 n 0 0 M fD OrQ N 1 3-a S M a cD 3 ara N N C G Q p Q n fD -h5 0 r -F G 05. 3 0 f-+ rD ~ N Q ~ UQ fD f7 • r+ 0 s2. * (DD rD =3 CL tn. w CL Q cD 0 N. r~ • I I 0 LA. 0 ~ Q- C (D ~ CL N v CD Q vi' r,-0 fD -h rD n Q rD Q N 3 0-0 c 3 V) - W V) fD C Q 1 m +,0 . ara f-+ . M -N = N Q Q - - n 0 Cl. 7C' 3 aq Q fl+ 0 fD C~ fD CL CL rD gQ -v n n plc z 0 rD 0 3 cD n MON ~T r MMN T~ ~ V cu cu n cu n cry ~N rb . V rD 3 Ln FU W CJ~ 90 n I • • • • O X FD41 Ln 00 r.+ • rD rD e-+ O~ • O rD • mm, O O 3 aQ C:J "a o r+ . m ~ 0 N N 70 o - I W rD Fg, (A =3 cn fD rD o 0) 00 rD 0 0 C/1 X n • rD rD _0 cn• O C r) M _ O' n ~ O :3 X c_n' ~ Cr M CU (D cn _ C n O M CL (D Q CU N =r rDD :3 ` c cn 0' r-f fD CL rD cn M O W rrDD ~ ~O fD r Q = n ? fZ O f4 ~ r+: O O• r+ fD O CL rD . cu D r-+ r-+ n O O r r+ O r rD n rrt fD rD 11 c- 0 m LA OL) r+ Q- r o ~ O rb • O 00 C. O O r0 O O ~ rb ~ O O ~ rb C 0 0 Q Ln O 0 O CL ora c r+ 70 Oq O r+ O C o fD cu cn Q r CL N Cn O ~ O 3 rD X rD • • o cm n N CL) r+ a) o cr CL r) O c r+ o~ m no rD CD • N rD cn :r rD rD - O fl'• oa a~ -h C 0 0 3~ ~--f. c- O U'l~ ~ Q M Cu m r+ W CL (D r+ n C:L =Y- :2. CD < CL rD r.+ CIL) r+ r+ O c r.+ CD cD Q. rD O +1 n n O o arcs r+ rD rD CL N o (D C: a) (A O C 0 cD CL • D r.+ n (D CL CL (D (A 0 n rD 0. CL (D N. O z 0 C) Q) rb rb LI) c' (b IN LI) Q) ~w Ln C) r) C+ fD Ln • r+ r) O =r FD -I O (D N ci n C- O W O ~ N n ~ m Q 3 -ml (D O n 3 O fD CD rt r-r S CD CL O C. S.~ O O cD O m r.+ x 3 (D (D o ~ P Ln WWI n O 3 A C O 0 (Do 0 r.+ = c- =3 rD O N n O 0 --1 O 0(D ) rf r+ rD 3 co fD o rD N ~ n ~ rD ca. 0. n r.i. cD O S N • • O 0 < 3 ~ N 0 r 0 m 0 ~ -h -0 C: X Cn CU so aq rD ~ c cu o as vin 0 K cu Ln rD C cn. O O 1 N 0 (D (D CL * rD n C: rD (/1 N ' O C (DD • ~ Q =r =3 • = as CL C: rD Ln rt 0 cD . aQ c- 0 0 rD O cr c- < rD rD rD CL e-+ * CL O rD rD O*Q oj < ~ ~ rD cn n - N ~ rD CL~~ rD CL O CA rD 3 ~q 0 r+ rD rD to ('1 O A C H O 0 0 m CO X -I f -t rD rD C rD 3 ro o ~ o ~ o rD o rD < fD - CU N rD D n cu F+ rD 3 0 rD c cD - rt --h 0 3 O 0 CL 0 ro - 0 0 3 0 rD -l rD rD r+ fD 3 O N n O fD ~D O O -f, O N -t, O r-r Q (7 r7 rD n rD C: . ~ .n rt rD aq rD rt =w rD• I a~ 0 o rD rD ~ X r*. 0 aQ 0 F+ ca. 0 Ln 0 f-t =3 rt C7 (D • O o ~ O O CL O 0) O r+ ~ rD o ~ . o r+ m - r) O Q CL =r r+ (D 5 o~ cD - 3 m O 0 rD 0 Lo O 0 a~ 3 o o O o O o v n s au ~a 0 0 rD . ~ n O fD "M% ~ (D N ~ e-+ (p 3 Q 3 0 • • z co cr = 0 ° ~ , r.+ O . O rD c 3 3 z> r+w D = 0 . ~ M M o o , ~ • m 0► rrt Q rD N C) 7 ' o O r+ . = r* rD rD ( O 0 C+ C;- n ~ ' ' CL 3 n n r* 'v T ~ V N ~ 7C v cn crD M n' O A rrt O 3 cn O 3 rD = -0 cn rD V •C ,-t r-F M r D 0 N rD rD rD a) rD O Q- :D o r+ rD CL) (A O < ~ m ~ rD ",I m rD 3 =r rD -11 x rD cL V) 3 rD w CL ro :3 (D 0 (D r+ r+ rD O < -a dQ w S. 5* r~-r a) r+ r+ . E5 N =3 r.. f 0 dq r+ rD N -1 CL DD a) x ~ o 0 ~ r D rD arq O rD CL cn ~ O :3 r+ O -1 =r rD Q- 0 -0 ~ p CL CA r+ =r rD CL rD = rn (DD rt a- rD rD v D n' r-r D r+ a~ n (D Q O N m x N~ e-+ O rD T O 0 SPANISH TRAIL ROAD SO L _ ~ I 27 I9 PROPOSED PARKING DEC Slg, _'000-w `4dp• 4 / i a+ _ POR LOT na R4N CORTE WOERA ML MESIDM 59-20 ' I 1SaN T {'J I~Yi ~ ~a3 i; 5R) it / i "4 _ '.IDS (a Y _ ea d 0 I AF 0 f _ ,vt A ~ ~ I I hwrXh 1 Cd _ tar A n)vn0n a vrzunr aMa Nlpw Mw ee 1, EC INpEDX 4;1 A-1-PIA-11 IIOt e0 v Rd lPn letar v„ Ewwy of Akdn Cdif I 1. - I I APN 059 I .201-33 I II I I ors, I 1 ~ C I Cy}y` n I III nF ) W-!'. II APN 059401-32 4,I Ldan.nn8lan I ~r _ _ (,r ~n - Je - l: ys~,, In 1 T- - -M -------I-T ~I I wXVnE vuu I { ~ aaD rcll _ _ I ~ e 0 4 F 1 I r, ~rM1N a n Sly, RF E r 1 ~g. VICINITY MAP EXI1nna RESUrr~ 2300 NeiADEL NAR FF ,I21~ VXDPE1aEHCF RDa.„1 ~ anaxaL AlpoE•v1 x rr r~ ~k E S S E Psp ll} tt 7 L. a { i n~ T w F w I la AEI d l y, ,a rap' Swns ° io»Dpd f 1 BITE SECTION ` 9 II ` I xIJ~ENWN I 3 II 60 • 1 _ w .mgr y I 3 ~ ~ Y I'. I E 1 TIIN ~ a,~q I J n0 _ y PRdpo~o RESIOENC t `s -s' ~ 1 II1I 1 m cn ~Rwe J f' T. _ , OFAPPRNOPOSED b'JII DING o,.mnl~.i OUTLINE 099.2.0199 4 II I n~w~ p 1 f y I i~ I I?1 J d I Im 'f'sE'L t} A I I `1 I-_ s c _ I F_imEoelvP LINE OF ROOF , COVERED PORCH G OENGPIESR10GE71E y / 114 1 I 1 I radar I, vam ~ ~ I I - SETBACK LINE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES us\us/rt/ ...~n~e 1.1 STORY POLE LOC p~ IAN Al 3L7 ~3~4 7-Y =61.-4 _ _ _ _ _ 20.64 = :]I- VISTq DEL MAR LANE ~BS2 3u9 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION BASED ON NOTE ALL EXISTING MATURE LANDSCAPING SURVEY BY OBERKAMPER n ASSOCIATESOATED 1210211009 IS TO REMAIN. NO NEW LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED n SITE PLAN 5CALE:- -1 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY RORRIS REaI001CE w,M10 NM l ei xl r»»t.u D--T ueuRduR trP. Rrw , XIn)RCI .11-4 IaT. ALL" roruwrAw nsre ,Rn I.F. noP06 tAXw =E'.FmR m an ~ enaoXOaAabe .n lar nn WT 0- NMIUE -03 a~ artelw aEE~E:~ :1. ,ro ulu an nn nw KbWllapA e~~ 1R, M, Mro 3M vu ono reen i,.lw ux wT -T "17 ROGER HARTLEY RCE25588 19376 Linden Street Sonoma, CA 95746 707.939.0240 roger©RogerHartlery. corn PROJECT DESCRIPTION This prapaul n to n»wN dashed rnid-oe,--family 1 11. pomel. The exdngkg- li't' belied the Ewer kvel Dfthe exd,y enu»Xdwllbewnveneddof g1p «WM khthemmhnueby removelglktkhen The existing 3s,r gu,ge loenedan Vigo del Mu will be moved so [hot Iegd Eked p,A eE pun w ill -at b, Y Inn 3 vAicln to- Ihepropo»dnd. Tk mofwll he rcphced wah )ced)rtnll'a,d wdeM A eno,d pe,tins truore for two m r,- ill be eontrroeNa X 9poomh Trail. Tha will be ee open patng do& end w ill be bu 1 w the rood ISMaf--wey oo Ihe1 n R u Inn meal ve u you ble roil emlyucneAle m the mon hnu .,sI us A E%fB91g1 WMA SCONCE S LANDSCME DLMITINO SHEET INDEX INEET PAGE DEECmP1pN c r u _ A-01 J MTEpWd A-03 3 iMEOENTATION DRAWINGS A43 3 FLOOR _ A-0L 4 / SECTIONS CTIONS A-05 5 ELEVATIONS jiAM 4 ELEVATIONS y P -EARIVNG XISTING DECK A-0T A41 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS W R N A AFL r~ k ~ ~ ~ N N fT7 U vii 'W7 ~ O No 141 112 z ts~ D No 1s+M tr E~PJIFS I ISSUE DATE w2212o1o PRINT DATE- O2v2Blo REVISIONS- Bill $ Jay Noma SITE PLAN SHEET A-01 ar 9 e~iwe `L 1 E[IM ' I i 1 ROGER T7',RTLEY RCE25598 19376 Linden Sheet Sonoma, CA 95746 707.939.0240 ro8er@,RogerHartley.com W U N u ° Ck O zz ey N GO (FYj F z a No ]Sees EW i1f i11 Q $ ~ Gee ISSUEDATB tl22i2ma PRIM DATE 111222010 REVISIONS Bill & Joy Nonis PRESENTATION DRAWING! SHEET A-02 a 9 E"~10 ROGER HARTLEY RCE 26598 19376 Linden Street Sonoma, CA 93746 707.939.0240 roger@RogerHartley.com Lff1~NN kl w*n. W z a W n r~ 0 a No x 0 z E+D I?JFti ISSUE DATE: I i 2moto PRINT DATE. Iunt2olo REVISIONS Bill & Joy Noma FLOOR PLAN SHEET A-03 a 9 I I , aa>ft"E non , ROGER HARTLEY RCE 25555 19716 Linden Street Sonoma, CA 95746 707.939.0240 rogerWogerHartley.com w z'~]Q w 0 N !L Q z 0 ~1 ~ No~15?~9a~ k Ery i11111 ISSUE DATE I I wow PRINT DATE. uavaola REVISIONS Bill s Joy Noma SECTIONS SHEET A-04 9 ROGER HARTLEY RCE 25589 19376 Linden Street Sononna, CA 95746 707.939.0240 roger(RogerHanley. cum w z,< W ~0 M A 0 ~Nu d U h 0 N0 w V3 < P O z ~~P'ro4 1w11 PnorPUP ~ ~1 No. 35SB9 IC ~A Iillll N~~ RPl ISSUEDATE. ivlvloio PRINT DATE: 1112212010 REVISIONS Bill & Joy Norris ELEVATIONS SHEET A-OS 0 9 (D--LE- ELEUAnoN SCALE. III ~ 1-0' ROGER HARTLEY RCE25588 19376 Linden Street Sonoma, CA 95746 707.939.0140 roger@Rogedlanley.cnm - - - ~eas,cn --1 HEAA 6EVA710N '7 w 0 N N w~ w Z CG ~ z z 0 z r no nsaa Eu iE.1~.it ~f r 91 F pF cP~~{ ISSUE DATE. 1112212010 PRINT DATE wzmwo REVISIONS Bill a Joy Norris ELEVATIONS SHEET n NWMT0.EVATON A-06 A ROGER HARTLEY RCE 15593 19376 Linden Street Sonoma, CA 95746 707.939M40 soger@RogerNenley.com w z w _ y ~ N P z ° ~o z ~m 0 z 1 I I i I I I I n I 1 I REAR FiEV~r ?A~glrw o[a UPPER P0.R1(INO DECK no. zssaa ~ EvP 1E-J~-i~ «P 9Fa pc L1` ISSUE DATE un:nolo PRINT DATE: immolo REVISIONS Bill & Joy Norris PARKING DECK SHEET A-07 a 9 11AK 1 Lh Y RCE 25588 19376 Linden Street Sonoma, CA 95746 707.939.0240 roger@RogerHartley.com TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 1935 SF w zap w o N A N Ch c J 4 0 06 z z rn N a N P 0 z UPPER FLOOR 1 \ 2nd HOUSE 1~PER LEVEL SCALE: 14 ~paESS+ xo 2ssaa Em IiJI it OF CP~If ` ISSUE DATE n/nnolo PRINT DATE: 1112212010 REVISIONS MAIN FLOOR LOWER LEVEL Bill & Joy Norris EXISTING CONDITIONS 2M HOUSE M 2nd HOUSE LONER LEVEL SHEET NN ' SCAE{A^ . LEVEL 0 SCALE: I I - 11.0 2 J FLOOR PLANS OF EXISTING HOUSE A"08 w B To: From: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting January 19, 2011 Agenda Item: Subject: Preliminary Draft Housing Element: Recommendation to Provide Council Comments, Accept the Document with any Desired Revisions, and Authorize Staff to Submit the Document to the State for Review Reviewed BACKGROUND State Law Requirements for Housing Elements State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan containing at least seven elements including a housing element. Rules regarding Housing Elements are found in the California Government Code Sections 65580-65589. Housing Elements must be updated on a cycle ranging from 5-8 years. All Bay Area jurisdictions are required to update their housing elements to cover the 2007-2014 housing element planning period to comply with State law. The Town's current Housing Element was adopted in 2005 and certified by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Unlike the other mandatory General Plan elements, the Housing Element is subject to much more detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). According to State law, the Housing Element must: ➢ Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs to preserve, improve and develop housing. ➢ Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. ➢ Identify adequate sites that will be zoned and available (prior to Housing Element adoption) within the current housing cycle to meet the Town's fair share of regional TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 housing needs at all income levels. 1,J PI.: s:. !J`5 ➢ Be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan (which is critical to having a legally adequate General Plan). ➢ Be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to determine if HCD "certifies" that the Housing Element is in compliance with state law. State Law establishes detailed content requirements for Housing Elements and requires a regional "fair share" approach to distributing housing needs - called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). State Housing Element law recognizes that in order for the private sector to address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and implementing regulations that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. In accordance with State law, the Housing Element must be consistent and compatible with other General Plan elements. Additionally, the Housing Element should provide clear policy and direction for making decisions pertaining to zoning, subdivision approval, housing allocations, and capital improvements. The housing action program must also identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of housing types for all income levels; assist in developing adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households; address governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; and promote housing opportunities for all persons. Organization of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element The Preliminary Draft Housing Element contains four primary sections: Introductory material; Background material; the Town's Vision, Goals, Policies and Programs; and Appendices. The most important parts of the Housing Element are the goals, policies and programs contained in Sections V and VI (pages 112-142). Pages 6-9 of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element provide definitions of key housing terms, such as the various household income categories used in the element (extremely low income, very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate income). Income limits are updated annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Marin County. The "Extremely Low Income," "Very Low Income," and "Low Income" schedules contained in the Housing Element were published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), effective May 14, 2010. These income limits are shown by family size below for various housing programs administered by the Marin Housing Authority. - Marin County FY 2010 Median Household Income Schedule Family Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Public Housing, Section 8, CDBG, Inclusionary Inclusionary, BMR Ownership Extremely Low Very Low Lower Median Moderate Above 30% 50% 80% 100% 120% Moderate $22,600 $37,650 $60,200 $69,600 $83,500 >$83,500 $25,800 $43,000 $68,800 $79,550 $95,450 >$95,450 $29,050 $48,400 $77,400 $89,450 $107,350 >$107,350 $32,250 $53,750 $86,000 $99,400 $119,300 >$119,300 $34,850 $58,050 $92,900 $107,350 $128,800 >$128,800 $37,450 $62,350 $99,800 $115,300 $138,350 >$138,350 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, effective May 14, 2010 Process for the Town's Housing Element Update Marin County jurisdictions are unique in the State of California because of the coordination that has occurred on housing elements. The Town participated in a collaborative effort involving all the jurisdictions in Marin County as part of the Marin Housing Workbook process. The Marin Housing Workbook provides background information for the housing element and included outreach to various stakeholder groups, with the goal of connecting with all segments of the population. Material from the Marin Housing Workbook is available at h.ttp:/,/www.marinhousingworkbook.com/. In addition, Town staff conducted a community workshop on May 12, 2009 to solicit comments from the community on directions for the Housing Element. The comments from the workshop and the Malin Housing Workbook activities lielped identify key issues and strategic directions to pursue in the Housing Element update. Meeting summaries are included in the Appendices to Preliminary Draft Housing Element. Near-term activities related to the Housing Element include: (1) review of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element by the Planning Commission (completed on January 12, 2011); (2) review of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element by the Town Council; and (3) modifications and preparation of the Draft Housing Element based on the Planning Commission and Town Council review, and then submittal to HCD for a mandatory 60-day initial review and comment period. HCD's comments will probably require modifications to the Draft Housing Element. Staff will strive to respond to all of HCD's comments and then will bring the Draft Housing Element with suggested any modifications back to the Planning Commission and then the Town Council prior to adoption. The Town will also conduct environmental review under CEQA on the Draft Housing Element and any proposed modifications as a result of HCD review. Key Changes from the 2005 Housing Element The current update builds upon the 2005 Housing Element as an important starting point. As with the 2005 Housing Element, this element recognizes there are limitations as to what the Town can do about these problems due to the limited availability of developable land. The Town is currently at just about total build-out. With the exception of infill and mixed-use areas, most other available residential sites are limited to small or steep sites with limitations due to access problems, soil stability, drainage, parking, etc. The Town has been very effective in implementing many of the programs contained in the 2005 Housing Element (see pages 15-29 of the Preliminary Draft Housing Element). The updated Housing Element recommends a precise and do-able set of implementing programs as well. Below are the goal areas and policies with related implementing programs (see pages 112-135). Goal H-A - Town Leadership and Outreach. Establish a Town leadership role in providing a mix of housing types that matches the needs of people of all ages and income levels. Implementing Programs Include ➢ Focus Town Resources on Key Housing Sites ➢ Review the Housing Element Annually Goal H-B - Special Needs Housing. Provide housing for special needs populations that is coordinated with support services. Implementing Programs Include ➢ Provision of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households ➢ Adopt Procedures for Reasonable Accommodation Goal H-C - Protecting and Conserving Existing Housing. Protect and conserve the existing housing stock and mix of unit types. Implementing Programs Include ➢ Rehabilitation Loan Programs ➢ Use of Rental Assistance Programs Goal H-D - (1) Infill, Higher Density Housing Opportunities. Facilitate the development of new infill housing in Downtown Tiburon and on identified underutilized sites throughout the Town that have existing infrastructure and few physical constraints. (2) Lower Density Housing. Focus development of lower density housing on vacant legal lots incapable of further subdivision and on undeveloped parcels where infrastructure constraints, physical constraints, and other non-governmental constraints prevent their development with more affordable housing. (3) Second Units and In-Lieu Fees. Continue to encourage and legalize secondary dwelling units in appropriate locations and use affordable housing in-lieu fees or impact fees on less constrained sites. Implementing Programs Include ➢ Facilitate Development at Key Housing Opportunity Sites ➢ Modify and Implement "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone" Zoning for Affordable Projects ➢ Establish Variable Density Standards for Affordable Projects on Key Housing Opportunity Sites Many Preliminary Draft Housing Element changes are updates reflecting what has happened over the past several years. Key changes from the Housing Element adopted in 2005 include the following: (A) Updated Data on Employment, Housing and Population Projections, Housing Needs, Affordability, Land Availability, Potential Governmental and Non-Governmental Constraints. The updated Housing Element contains updated statistics and analysis of housing issues per State law. The projections in the Housing Element are consistent with ABAG projections and the California Department of Finance. (B) New Programs Supporting Housing for Special Needs Populations. The Preliminary Housing Element contains a program to adopt procedures for "reasonable accommodation." (C) Modification to the Town's "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone." Perhaps the most significant change contained in the Preliminary Draft Housing Element is the staff and consultant recommendation to reduce the affordable housing requirements (percentages) for sites zoned for affordable housing overlay from 60% to 25% in recognition of the feasibility of developing housing on these sites. Housing Element law requires that the Town inventory vacant and underdeveloped sites, as well as sites with known potential for redevelopment which are available for housing development. The Town has an obligation to identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to encourage the development of housing consistent with Town's "fair share" regional need. The table attached as Exhibit 1 identifies potential housing sites and housing unit potential in Tiburon. State law requires that the Town address its RHNA, including the provision of sufficient sites to meet the Town's RHNA for very low and low income housing on sites designated at 20 or more units per acre. Under the Town's "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone" this density can be achieved. However, the staff and consultant are convinced that requiring 60% of the units at the current affordability percentages and levels (20% for very low income, 20% for low income, and 20% for moderate income) unduly constrains development of housing on potential housing sites. The proposed new balance would be 15% very low income and 10% low income, for-a total of 25% of units being affordable. Also, it is particularly critical for the Town to provide housing at 20 units or more per acre to meet the combined need for very low and low income households i (see "Lower Income Subtotal"' column). Below are the Town's RHNA numbers compared to other jurisdictions in Marin County. Marin County Jurisdictions - ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation - RHNA (2007.2014) Jurisdiction Extremely Low Income * Very Low Income Low Income Lower Income Subtotal Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Units Default Density Required** Belvedere 3 5 4 9 4 4 17 20 units/acre Corte Madera 34 68 38 106 46 92 244 20 units/acre Fairfax 12 23 12 35 19 54 108 20 units/acre Larkspur 45 90 55 145 75 162 382 20 units/acre Mill Valley 37 74 54 128 68 96 292 20 units/acre Novato 138 275 171 446 221 574 1,241 30 units/acre Ross 4 8 6 14 5 8 27 20 units/acre San Anselmo 13 26 19 45 21 47 113 20 units/acre San Rafael 131 262 207 469 288 646 1,403 30 units/acre Sausalito 23 45 30 75 34 56 165 20 units/acre Tiburon 18 36 21 57 27 33 117 20 units/acre Unincorporated 92 183 137 320 169 284 773 30 units/acre Total 548 1,095 754 1,849 977 2,056 4,882 Percent 11.2% 22.4% 15.4% 37.9% 20.0% 42.1% 100.0% *Extremely Low Income (ELI) need equals 50% of Very Low Income Need (50% of 26 Very Low Units = 13 Units) **Required per AB 2348 - Default density on sites appropriate for Lower Income Unit Need (see Lower Income Subtotal above) Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (May, 2008) See http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/Final_RHNA.pdf (D) Establishment of Variable Density Standards at Key Housing Opportunity Sites. Modeled after the program used in Santa Barbara, Variable Density Standards, described on p. 132 of the Preliminary Draft Element, reflects the varying impact of units based on size; in terms of traffic, parking, mass and bulk, and other characteristics. The program encourages the provision of a greater range of housing unit types and sizes than would otherwise likely be built in Tiburon, greatly helping to address provision of housing across all economic segments of the community. NEXT STEPS Following review, comment and any revisions by the Town Council, the Element will be forwarded to HCD for its initial review and comment. Following receipt of those comments, Staff will make any necessary revisions, release a Draft Housing Element for public review, and proceed to hold public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council to consider i adoption of the Element. Once adopted, the Element must be forwarded to HCD for its final review and, if found acceptable, certification by HCD. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element on January 12, 2011. One member of the public spoke. The Commission voted to accept the document and recommend to the Council that it be submitted to HCD for initial review. Planning Commission minutes (draft) of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 2. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the writing of this report, no correspondence has been received from the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1) Take testimony from interested persons; 2) Discuss and make comments or recommended changes to the document; 3) Direct staff to submit the document to HCD for initial review and comment. EXHIBITS 1. Summary Table of Housing Sites in Draft Element 2. Planning Commission minutes (draft) of January 12, 2011. PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL Preliminary Draft Housing Element (also available on-line at www.ci.tiburon.ca.us) Prepared by: Jeffrey Baird, Planning Consultant Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development/ S: I4dniinistration7own CouncibStaff Reportsl2011lJan 19 draftslPrelim Draft Housing Element report.doc a) V N~ ai r a) R N m p c o) O co C N CM m M C N c6 Co C C I w cv V- N p m C m C + _ D Z X W = X W O C m a) O U a ' to > ca > U = ~ m o 0 CD m m Um .0 05 r • V (n (n mA co N N N V O1 C N c Y Y O C O C CD C a) a. _ a a) 12 o J c m m Q~ ° 2 IL = d c U cn > (D CD - p p 3 U) ' O N to r r r N r In co M o) Cfl C) O ~ ~V M M . H . .C O o to 72 O N Lo r r r N r- co L m O ti O +0+ _ -C y O O O O O 0 eN - C) sz 0 m rn ~ co 4 ti t M C O >1 N N N N N N CD a) a) a) w rn rn 0) d C> 0 CV N CV cV r r r r e- i C) I~ U) Cl O CD a) C a) G ~1 L L3 Q O O O r O > > . O CO Ch N N M U) co C W ~ O ~r O cm to O C)N ' C O U) 42 ca o co o m 0 NW o M .•o~ o Sm 4) Q LL C Ll C Z LL ^ C LL t C =3 -p w f6 m y. as O O 'pMN~ m C7 O 'DMN - co p O ~MN-0 m p 0 72ce)N.Q >N'00 G c O = to O O a) O C) a) O a) Z, CO cQ O r C a a pQ o C) 10 -0 Q o u u) -0 a o m aQ o c`3 w C~ o-0 a a L L o `.r G o~aCL ~ m O a o- co G oiacs a) m -6 O-~ M G o~CL m c O w a O`»-. c6 G ocao. O m -C3 a)Q4M C- O O a (n ' A E w m 3 ~ E ~ - -0 >1 LZ cu - ~ a)mrn r E 01 = mi ca -o H O CD Ea T Lm Ea - 2 ' a-w 2m mEa '~a z CI) m o >'G U ) o > E U a) o >•C U a) o >'E c) a) a) > :j ZUO ca ZUO o ti ZUO o m ZUO :3 ca >m0-a c N o) O O O O w m 0 Q Q ¢ O 0 N L) a. 2 U) W > > Z Z Z Z ~ H C LC) > T- a) U % N LA Q) C > C (a d C CL C O cn a ` 0 -0 O Y C O CO p E O- Q Q O CL O ti a)O ~0 M O E a) -2 J = E m U Q C -0 ca F- m O O _ (A w O m CL W O CO C C U - J C) L,_ LD O 0) M = _ C O O 0) - > C 0 'e ~ *0 o _ a) r o O m o U a) 0) a E.. O J Lo O fm .L .Q L) P ca CO O moM W O O a) m UU ~CL 0 - - co (D 0 .0 0 Co ( I- > m co CD co .9 EXHIBIT NO. EXHIBIT 2 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NEW BUSINESS 3. PRELIMINARY DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT: RECEIVE CONSULTANT'S PRESENTATION; ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT; PROVIDE COMMISSION COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Director introduced the item, noting this request for initial comments on the Preliminary Draft Housing Element is the first step in a rather lengthy process. He introduced Planning Consultant Jeff Baird, primary author of the draft document. Mr. Baird provided a PowerPoint presentation reviewing what a Housing Element is and must do, trends in State law, regional housing needs, review of the current Housing Element, and the modifications proposed. With regards to State law, he noted there is increasing specificity, more monitoring and accountability, increased local requirements and expectations, and a greater need for realistic solutions. He stated that Tiburon, in conjunction with the County and all eleven towns and cities in Marin, participated in development of the Marin Housing Workbook to aid in drafting a more coordinated and comprehensive Housing Element. Mr. Baird discussed the need to identify housing sites, as expressed through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. Of the Bay Area's 214,500 housing units needed, Marin County is responsible for 4,882 and Tiburon for 117 units of those units. Of Tiburon's units, 57 are required to be for the lower income demographic (low, very low, and extremely low income), with sites required to be zoned at 20 units or more per acre. He noted that while the Town's RHNA numbers are down over the previous planning period, it is required to provide for a higher percentage of lower income units. Baird noted that the State requires Tiburon to plan and zone for the housing units, but not construct them. He discussed the impacts of climate and housing demographic changes on the document. He stated that while population growth is fairly minimal in Marin County, new homes are needed to address the aging population and workforce affordability. Marin County has a significantly increasing senior population, as well as a very significant increase in the number of single person households. It is estimated that the latest census will indicate that approximately one-third of all new Marin County households will be single person, meaning the type of housing provided for this demographic needs to focus on service-based locations with opportunity for interaction. Mr. Baird reviewed the modifications proposed in the Preliminary Draft Element. The Town's key sites for high-density residential development potential are at the east end of the Cove Shopping Center, a Reed Union School District-owned site immediately behind Reed School, and the current parking lot site next to the proposed CVS location. All of these sites are currently shown in the existing Housing Element for this purpose, and are not new. With the affordable housing overlay, each site can provide greater than 20 units per acre, or 60 to 70 sites in total, Minutes Tiburon Planning Commission 111212011 DRAFT - 1 - which would satisfy the need for lower income housing. It remains to be seen whether HCD will accept this proposed solution as suitable, but at this time he and staff feel they have provided adequate sites. In addition to these sites, the Preliminary Draft Element updates certain data, outlines a program to adopt procedures for "reasonable accommodation," and modifies the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to reduce the affordable housing requirement from 60% to 25% in any project. This is a significant change, but the reduction to a less onerous requirement would create more of an opportunity for these sites to actually be developed. The Preliminary Draft Element also establishes "variable density standards" for key Housing Opportunity Sites as a way to be more responsive to the size and impacts of individual units. Commissioner Doyle inquired as the term, "underdeveloped" and asked how that differs from "open" or vacant. Mr. Anderson explained that "underdeveloped" would describe something like the Rabin property, which has 30 acres and only one house, and is obviously not developed to its full potential. Mr. Baird added that the idea is to demonstrate to HCD and the community the feasibility and realistic assessment of these sites; sites that are vacant are much easier to develop than those that are underdeveloped and contain existing buildings. Commissioner Tollini requested clarification on the responsibilities associated with identifying sites with the potential for affordable housing. Mr. Baird stated the Housing Element primarily identifies sites suited for higher-density housing which, under State law as it applies to Tiburon, is the default amount of 20 units per acre. While it is assumed that this density creates an opportunity for affordable housing to be built, it is not the Town's responsibility to do so. Mr. Anderson added that the Town no longer owns any properties that could be used for affordable housing. Referring to Appendix B, Commissioner Kunzweiler asked where the data for potential housing units is derived from. He noted that certain properties showed potential for more units than the Commission approved for their projects. Mr. Anderson explained that the information is taken from the Town's Vacant Land Inventory and is based on what the General Plan allows on each specific parcel. While certain properties may have received approval for less, it is possible that those approvals will expire and the potential would return to that amount allowed by the General Plan. Chair Frymier asked Mr. Baird to speculate as to what HCD's comments might relate to and if the community is prepared to address them. Mr. Baird replied that State law has become increasingly specific and comments are usually focused on those requirements. Typically, the most significant comments relate to the assessment of "potential governmental constraints" and "adequacy of housing sites". Jurisdictions that exceed their requirements by very low margins are often asked to provide more information about the sites identified. Other typical comments relate to the feasibility of affordable housing requirements. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. Minutes Tiburon Planning Commission 111212011 DRAFT -2- Public Comment: Robin Curley, Esperanza Street, said she has participated on the housing team of the Marin Organizing Committee (MOC) for the last year and is generally pleased with what Belvedere and Tiburon have done to encourage development of affordable housing. She referred to Page 21 of the Draft Element, which comments on the perpetuity of Bradley House affordability, and said MOC has struggled for the past year to ensure that Bradley House remains as low and very-low income housing stock. Also, there is a lack of oversight by the owners that has allowed their board to disband and a new board to be brought in under a new set of HUD regulations. She clarified that Bradley House is comprised of two elements: the 3 small cottages and then the 12 units. HUD has difficulty with keeping this straight, and now that the bonds have been satisfied, there is conflicting information as to what will happen. Mr. Baird recommended that staff look into and include discussion on the matter in the preliminary draft. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kunzweiler said the document is incredibly well crafted and he is pleased to see special needs housing addressed. He referred to Program H-7(4) and expressed concern with the qualitative nature of "easily and inexpensively", noting that it occurs in several other sections relating to special needs. He also referred to Program H-19E, which discusses planning and development of unincorporated sites in the Housing Element Area. He described the poor condition of Paradise Drive and said he was glad to see the inclusion that this constrains development, but also that it begs the question of why both the County and the Town continue to approve development here. Mr. Anderson explained that HCD looks more at constraints to the development of "affordable" housing as opposed to market rate housing in communities such as Tiburon. ' Since neither the Town nor the County have proposed any affordable housing along Paradise Drive, the comments regarding Paradise Drive are consistent and accurate within the Element. Chair Frymier noted a font issue on Page 92 and requested that "cannot" on Page 13, last paragraph, be corrected to "can not." ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Corcoran) to accept the Preliminary Draft Element and recommended that staff forward the Preliminary Draft Housing Element to the Town Council with the Commission's comments. Motion carried: 5-0. Minutes Tiburon Planning Commission 1/12/2011 DRAFT -3 -