Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2013-10-02 (3)APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages ifnecessa ),0 Name: di _ 4+ h md: � Mailing JUL 2 9 2013 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415.435 -7373 www.ci.tiburon ca us Telephone: qp — L4> r 1jLO � }�,J Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): !q , %Ccps ,�j ecry, 4 "7 � CE 4:�e4s s i , G a, •�j ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: !✓ �' f� L Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: 2!-N %f Name of , Type of Application or Decision: ,g- -PP/1 =V "Q' GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) q STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE 2 Last Day to File Appeal: Date Appeal Filed: Fee Paid:_ Receipt No. / O (P/ C Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current FSling Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non - applicant SaAdminiatrationkForwWonce of Appeal farm revised 3.9.2010.doc Revi Iq March 2010 EXHIBIT NO. I OF (3 600 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 July 29, 2013 Tiburon Town Council Attn: Daniel M. Watrous 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of DRB Decision re 510 Ridge Road Project Dear Dan: Phone 415/435-4506 Facsimile 415/435 -7483 This project remains so impactful on my home at 600 Ridge Road that I must appeal the DRB decision of July 18, 2013. While progress was made, it did not reach a point of compliance with the findings for Site Plan and architectural review. Very minor changes would go a long way in mitigating the nighttime light issues which have been raised. There are three absolutely crucial elements that need to be addressed. The grounds for appeal are as set forth in letters from my attorney Riley Hurd, my architect Michael Heckmann and myself, which are already part of the administrative record and are attached to this letter for your convenience. This appeal may be further supplemented. The three crucial issues are the following: 1. North- facing entry windows shown on sheet DR9. This is an area of the existing home where there is currently no glazing. These windows should be made clearstory or screened. if they aren't addressed, all of the gains made in regard to the dining room window would be completely undone and my night sky view compromised. I really don't think the plan would be compromised if these windows were raised or screened. 2. Dining room window. I would ask that applicants simply utilize the louvers they originally proposed to screen just the north - facing portion of this window, as it EICHIBIT NO I_ P. z. op 3 Tiburon Town Council Attn: Daniel M. WatrOLIS July 29, 2013 Page 2 of 2 will still be very bright for me even though it is reduced in size from an earlier proposal. They would still enjoy sweeping views while protecting those uphill. 3. Lower hallway windows wood screen. I am comfortable with this screening solution, but would simply request that the applicants provide me with detailed and specific specs of the slats such that we may independently confirm their efficacy for this application. This detail should be such that the light will not be seen from my home at 600 Ridge Road. A letter with the same three concerns was sent to Architect Swatt on July 19, 2013. He replied that he sent it to his client for response. I did not hear from his client and so I phoned Paul Wong and requested a meeting to discuss these issues. Mr. Wong refused to meet with me and has never been to my house to see what I am talking about, even though I made numerous requests that he visit my home so he can see the view from my home. Because Mr. Wong refuses to meet with me or my representatives, I am left with no choice but to appeal the DRB decision. I believe my remaining requests are fair and reasonable and should be approved on appeal. I still welcome a meeting with the applicants at my house with Mr. Swatt attending. Very truly yours, Z-� /," -- Bruce Breitman encl: Check for $300 Letter from architect Michael Heckman to Robert Swatt dated July 11, 2013 Letter from attorney Riley Hurd to DRB dated July 13, 2013 Letter from Bruce Breitman to DRB dated July 15, 2013 cc: Michael Heckman Riley Hurd, Esq. Robert Swatt Miya Muraki Paul Wong Julie Huh IBIT To, EX-H T?. 0OF13 July 11, 2013 Swatt -Miers 5845 Doyle St. #104 Emeryville, CA 94608 Attn: Bob Swatt RE: 510 Ridge Rd. After my review of your revised plans dated 718113, it is clear that many of the changes you have made to the project show progress on the problem areas of the previous design. It also helps to have a landscape scheme with clearer concepts and graphics. However, there are still some remaining issues that need attention in order for my client to be able to support this project. These issues are as follows: The new home design has documented that much of the existing foundations and wall framing are to be integrated into the new structure, thereby claiming the existing floor levels as benchmarks for the new house. It is extremely unlikely that a new home of this quality will recycle 50- year -old building components and, certainly, the old foundations cannot be used for new shear walls or moment frames. Since this is essentially an all - new house, the entire structure can be lowered 2 -3 feet, still maintain the critical view elements for your clients, and thereby eliminate most of the objections of the neighbors at 600 and 601 Ridge Rd. 2. The proposed wood screen for the lower level bedroom hall exterior glazed wall might be a viable solution to the light spill from these windows. However, we will need an actual detail showing all component sizes and finishes and an installation system that is permanent so that the screen is not easily removed. 3. The main entry north windows and glass door will still be visible from the residence at 600 Ridge Rd. A size reduction, clearstory -type windows, or the wood screen system used elsewhere needs to be incorporated in this area. 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel 415.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects @earthlink.net www.heckmannarchitects.com vj_�MIBIT NO. P S 6 F Cf) 4. The reduction in the size of the north dining windows is a good improvement. However, since the remaining window will still be quite visible from 600 Ridge Rd. at night, an exterior wall or screen needs to be incorporated. This would extend out perpendicular to the window from its western jamb for a length of about 3 feet and would shield the window completely. 5. We would request actual samples of the garage door panels and frame to confirm that they are matte finish and are non - reflective, as even an opaque glass can be very reflective in sunlight. The landscape plan shows 3 new California bay laurel trees at the uphill property corner. If these grow to a height of 40 feet, they will cause view blockage from 600 Ridge Rd. They need to be eliminated and a lower- growing substitution made. There is also an existing redwood tree shown on the plan that is about 40 feet from the street near the new fire pit. Redwoods are well -known to be fast- growing and causing view blockage. This tree needs to be removed or a lower- growing substitution made. Also, note that the changes to the north dining windows are not properly reflected in the lighting plan /Sheet DR15 and that drawing, therefore, needs to be revised. It would certainly appear that addressing these remaining elements is possible prior to next week's DRB meeting. If this can be achieved, we could then come to the hearing in support of the amended project, and not be left to try and resolve these issues during a hearing and /or appeal process. I will make myself available to meet with you and discuss these issues at your convenience so that we may hopefully resolve this matter. '-•.. Michael Heckmann Cc: Dan Watrous /Tiburon Planning Dept. E HIBIT NCB. I P & o f= 0 ILF Ragghianti i F rei tas LLP RILEY F. HURD III RHURD @RFLAWLLP,COM July 15, 2013 Via E -Mail Only (dzoatrousOtozimoftiburon.org) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 510 Ridge Road; File #21304 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 874 FOURTH STREET, SUITE D SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901-3246 TELEPHONE 415.453.9433 FACS I M aE 415.453.8269 WWW.RFL WLLP.COM Our office continues to represent Mr. Bruce Breitman in connection with the above - referenced application. Mr. Breitman is the owner of the home at 600 Ridge Road, which is uphill from the proposed project, and which has primary views directly over the subject property. We are pleased to report that, since the last hearing on this matter, significant progress has been made by the applicants in mitigating the impacts on Mr. Breitman s property. It is our position that with a few, relatively minor, additional changes, findings for approval of this project could be made, and a prolonging of the review process avoided for all involved. Light Pollution A distinguishing feature of Mr. Breitman s home, and the neighborhood in general, is a completely dark night sky, which allows for amazing nighttime views of San Francisco and the Bay. Tiburon's Design Review findings specifically address light pollution and afford protections to surrounding properties. Section 16- 52.020(H)(8) states that the DRB should consider the following: "Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes." 7oF13 Ragghianti �Freitas LLP Tiburon DRB July 15, 2013 Page 2 of 4 In response to the direction of the DRB and neighbor comments, the applicants have proposed changes in an attempt to address light pollution from their project. With the following modifications, we believe the required finding under 16- 52.020(H)(8) could appropriately be made: 1. Dining Room Window - The reduction in the size of this window is a vast improvement, however, given its location directly in the lower - middle of the 600 Ridge Road viewshed, even this smaller window will be very visible at night. Fortunately, there is a simple solution, with little to no impact on the applicants, but great improvement for the uphill neighbors. The installation of an exterior wall or screen that extends out perpendicular to the window from its western jamb for a length of 3 feet would shield the window completely, while still providing the applicants with unobstructed views in all relevant directions. Of all the changes requested herein, this small component would have the most significant effect. 2. Lower Level Bedroom Hallway - The applicants propose to keep this massive expanse of glazing, but to incorporate a vertical wood screen. Such screening can be effective when designed properly and installed in a permanent fashion. We would request a condition requiring a more detailed design of this screen, and measures that prevent its easy future removal. 3. Main Entry Windows and Door - The main entry windows and glass door will still be very visible from the residence at 600 Ridge Rd. A size reduction, clearstory -type windows, or the wood screen system used elsewhere should be required to be incorporated in this area. These three minor changes will go a long way in preserving the dark night sky that currently exists in this neighborhood. Landscaping Significant opportunities exist for mitigating the effects of this project through careful and effective landscaping and the applicants' new landscape plan makes progress in this regard. The following issues remain: 1. Bay Laurels - The southeast corner of 510 Ridge is a key area for vegetative screening. The new landscape plan proposes the planting of Bay Laurel trees in this area, which are stated on the plan to grow to 40 feet in height. Utilizing this species would undo all of the gains achieved by the redesign, as 40 -foot trees ,e rds4..S3TT NO.— L 'p.. 9 oP 13 OLF RagghiantiiFreitas LLP Tiburon DRB July 15, 2013 Page 3 of 4 would obliterate the views from 600 Ridge. A tree species that grows to a maximum of the height of the approved residence should be substituted. 2. Trees at 601 Ridge Road - An aged grove of pine trees exists on the property at 601 Ridge Road. At this time, these trees serve as an uphill visual screen, however, due to the age of these trees and their poor health, it is not anticipated they will survive much longer. Accordingly, these trees should not be relied upon as a screening mechanism, and other methods employed. (See Bartlett Tree Service analysis submitted by Mr. Breitman), 3. Cedar/Fir Tree - There is a currently existing large Cedar tree at the front of the applicants' property that screens much of the existing home at 510 Ridge. Taus tree was previously misidentified on the plans as a "fir," and is apparently now proposed to be removed (Plan Ll does not specify which trees are being taken out, but does not show the retention of this tree.) This tree should be required to remain as an important screening element. These landscape edits will supplement the design changes made thus far, and those proposed above, and will help the project comply with the Town's design guidelines. House Elevation A large component of neighbor complaints regarding this project has been view blockage. According to the applicants, the elevation of the proposed home is supposedly constrained by their desire to utilize the existing foundation. It strains credulity to suggest that 50 -year old foundations will be salvaged to try and support an expensive new home like this one. In fact, from an engineering perspective, the old foundations cannot be used for new shear walls or moment frames. Given the high degree of probability that the foundations will be found to be unusable, the home could simply be lowered 2 -3 feet into the hillside, which would still provide the applicants with all desired views, while greatly improving the view of uphill neighbors. Since the design does not utilize a stepped approach as set forth in the Hillside Design Guidelines (See Sheet DR -12), this lowering of the home could result in the same net effect while not requiring a major design change. Conclusion While it is unfortunate that the applicants and their team have refused to engage Mr. Breitman since the last hearing, or even visit his property, progress has been made. Addressing the issues herein will go a long way in mitigating remaining impacts and P- � of 0 R.agghlantijFre.ltaS LLP Tiburon DRB July 15, 2013 Page 4 of 4 bringing closure to this application. Thank you for your attention to these important matters. CC: Bruce Breitman Michael Heckman Very Truly Yours, �.I Riley F. Hurd III EXHIB-IT NO. P to o !3 600 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Via Email: dwatrous @ci.tiburon.ca.us July 15, 2013 Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA, 94920 Re: 510 Ridge Road Dear Design Review Board Members: Phone 415/435 -4506 Facsimile 415/435 -7483 This letter is in regard to the revised plans for the above captioned project dated July 8, 2013. I was pleased to see the proposed changes which have taken into consideration some of the issues earlier raised. I believe with a few more minor changes I could support the project. Although the dining room window was reduced in size, it nevertheless remains in place, albeit smaller than originally proposed. My concern is the light pollution will still emanate from the smaller window, which is in the very center of my nighttime view. The solution to this issue is easy. A small narrow wall perpendicular to the window would block the light and solve the problem of continuing nighttime light pollution. With a small wall they can have their window and I can have my nighttime view. This is very important to me. With regard to windows in the hallway leading to the master bedroom, it is crucial to see the detail for the proposed screening in order to be certain the screening will shield light from the hallway windows. I am hoping we can see the detail prior to the July 18 hearing. The front door, which is glass, will contribute to the light pollution emanating from the house and will be visible from 600 Ridge Road. The windows at this entryway will contribute light pollution which will also be visible from 600 Ridge Road. To avoid additional light pollution, the front door should not be glass and the windows at the entryway need to be screened. Currently there are trees on the McDermott property at 601 Ridge Road that block a portion of the existing 510 house. Bartlett Tree Experts, through Art Tyson, a Board Certified Master Arborist, advises these trees are now beyond their usual life span and within five years these trees will likely require removal. Attached is a letter from Mr. Tyson. When those trees are removed, they will no longer shield the new 510 Ridge house from 600 Ridge Road, and therefore should not be relied upon in this process for screening. E-17LHIEIT NO,- L P. 1/ 6P43 Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager July 15, 2013 Page 2 of 2 There is now a large cedar /fir tree on the 510 Property that needs to be retained in order to continue to shield a significant portion of the proposed house from 600 Ridge Road. I understood this tree would be retained: however, I cannot confirm retention from the July 8 landscape drawing. Please require retention of this tree as earlier agreed. I am surprised and disappointed that the applicant and Bob Swatt have ignored many offers conveyed by me and architect Heckmann to view their project from my house. They have never come to my house throughout the entire process to see how my view will be impacted by their project. I am hopeful the above suggested changes can be incorporated which would allow me to support the project. Thank you very much. Best regards, lsl F14wz 5aelSaxcua Bruce Breitman Enh Letter from Bartlett Tree Experts cc: Riley Hurd, Esq. via email RHurd@rflawllp.com Michael Heckmann, Architect Consultant via email HeckmannArchitects @earthlink.net Paul Wong and Julie Huh via email mingwong888 @gmail.com Miya Muraki, Architect via email mmuraki @swattmiers.com Robert Swatt, Architect via email rswattodswattmiers.com tai HIBIT N R 1Z0> /S My 1.0, 2013 A.rlr. Bruce BmArrian 600 Ridge. Rd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Pine Tree's on IvicDorniott Property, 601 Ridge Rd., Tilaumm, CA 94920 To Whorn It May Concern, Bartlett Tree Experts has been caring for the Pine trees ai the front Ieft comer of the Nit.Deancat property (viewed facing the front of the house from tire: street) for the past 5 years. At the request of Ivir, Ehuce Breitr ran I have recently inspected the Pine trees mentioned above. The Phe tree, are older that the average expecaed lire span for Pine species_ In addition, the Pines are infected with Pine Pitch Canker as are many Pines in our area. Pine Pitch Canker is a disease that has killed thousands of Pine trees in Northern California and there is no treatment available to suppress or prevent the disease. Mr. McDermott has authorized Bartlett Tree Experts over the recent years to try to keep the referenced Pines hecafthy and safe as possible. The general health of the Pure.: is poor to fair like must of the older Pines found in our area. For the above mentioned reasons, i do not expect the Pines referenced on the McDermott property to survive long term and in fact I would not be si•rprised to see some or all die withiri then next 5 Vatic. These Pares are not native to this aria and as mundoned above, have health challenges. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. -7.a Art Tyson Board Certifies! Master Arborist VV E -3174 B f'o H z ai, n�: raur.. tits• �taCacl. ¢: �. �r4vu t 7 I�., s,nia< 115 172-4j(H) -1 1 5-17D O My 1.0, 2013 A.rlr. Bruce BmArrian 600 Ridge. Rd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Pine Tree's on IvicDorniott Property, 601 Ridge Rd., Tilaumm, CA 94920 To Whorn It May Concern, Bartlett Tree Experts has been caring for the Pine trees ai the front Ieft comer of the Nit.Deancat property (viewed facing the front of the house from tire: street) for the past 5 years. At the request of Ivir, Ehuce Breitr ran I have recently inspected the Pine trees mentioned above. The Phe tree, are older that the average expecaed lire span for Pine species_ In addition, the Pines are infected with Pine Pitch Canker as are many Pines in our area. Pine Pitch Canker is a disease that has killed thousands of Pine trees in Northern California and there is no treatment available to suppress or prevent the disease. Mr. McDermott has authorized Bartlett Tree Experts over the recent years to try to keep the referenced Pines hecafthy and safe as possible. The general health of the Pure.: is poor to fair like must of the older Pines found in our area. For the above mentioned reasons, i do not expect the Pines referenced on the McDermott property to survive long term and in fact I would not be si•rprised to see some or all die withiri then next 5 Vatic. These Pares are not native to this aria and as mundoned above, have health challenges. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. -7.a Art Tyson Board Certifies! Master Arborist VV E -3174 B TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting June 6, 2013 Agenda Item: 8 510 Ridge Road; File #21304 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single - Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage ADDRESS: 51.0 RIDGE ROAD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 059 - 091 -24 FILE NUMBER: 21304 PROPERTY OWNERS: PAUL WONG AND JULIE HUH APPLICANT: SWATT /MIERS ARCHITECTS LOT SIZE: 20,647 SQUARE FEET ZONING: RO -2 (SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -OPEN) GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: MAY 8, 2013 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Plamzing 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 153031 PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 510 Ridge Road. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single- family dwelling. An existing detached accessory building will also be demolished as part of this project. The upper level of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen and a powder room. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms, three more bathrooms, and a family room. A two -car garage would be situated at the upper level. The Ir driveway would be reconfigured and a new yard and play area would be installed in the location of the existing driveway and accessory building. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,002 square feet, which would be 6' ) square feet less than the 4,065 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 3,343 square feet (16.2 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage. A portion of the proposed house would be situated within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is also requested for reduced front yard setback. The exterior of the proposed house would include grey stucco and clear finished wood siding with aluminum trim. The flat roof would utilize tar and gravel roofing materials. A color and materials board has been submitted and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. ANALYSIS Design Issues The subject property generally slopes down from Ridge Road. The lot has a triangular shape and narrows downhill toward the rear of the site. The proposed house would be situated in generally the same location as the existing house. Tile new house would replace the pitched roofs of the existing structure with flat roofs that would generally be at lower elevations than the existing roof ridgeline. However, the proposed plans include aparapet -type screen around several upper level skylights that would extend 2.5 to 3.5 feet above the surrounding flat roof areas. This screen would be lower than the existing roof ridgeline, but would appear to extend unnecessarily above the roofline into the view for the home at 601 Ridge Road. The proposed house would be primarily viewed from the home across the street at 601 Ridge Road and the residence to the northwest at 600 Ridge Road. The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines should be used in evaluating the potential view impacts from these neighboring homes: Goal 1, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection if 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 less actively used areas of a dwelling (e.g. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den)." The proposed house would intrude into the views from the kitchen, dining room and adjacent deck of the home at 610 Ridge Road and the primary living areas of the home at 600 Ridge Road. A portion of the views from 600 Ridge Road are currently blocked by trees and shrubs on the subject property that will be removed as part of this project. TowN OF TYBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 °�IIBI'� NO. 2 i y Goal 1, Principle 7 (C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "blockage of center of [the] view [are] more damaging than blockage of [the] side of [the] view." The proposed house would intrude into the center of the view from the residence at 601 Ridge Road and the lower portion of the center of the view from the home at 600 Ridge Road. r� Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "blockage of important object 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 intrude into the views of Angel Island from either neighboring home, but would extend into portions of the views of Raccoon Straits. i'owq OF TaeuRoN Papa 3 of 9 I-' °'! Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The home at 601 Ridge Road has views of Angel Island and San Francisco that are broad, but not necessarily panoramic in nature. The home at 600 Ridge Road has a more panoramic view that extends toward the Golden Gate Bridge. The proposed house would block only a small portion of the larger views from these neighboring homes. E � The proposed house would extend to the east further into the lower portion of the views of Raccoon Straits from the home at 601 Ridge Road. If the skylight screen was eliminated or greatly reduced in size, the proposed house would open up a portion of view of Raccoon Straits at the base of Angel Island. This roof modification would make the encroachment into the existing views by other portions of the proposed house more palatable as a tradeoff for this neighboring dwelling. The proposed house includes upper level windows that would be visible from the homes at 601 & 600 Ridge Road. The upper level entry and dining room windows would appear to be in the line of sight from the residence at 600 Ridge Road and could affect nighttime views toward San Francisco from this neighboring home. The proposed plans also include glass garage doors which would be more visible from the home at 600 Ridge Road. The Design Review Board should view the story poles from the homes at 601 & 600 Ridge Road and determine whether modifications need to be made to the proposed glazing for the house to address these concerns. TOWN OF TEBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 i7- IBIT NO. 2--- Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the RO -2 zone, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. In order to grant the requested variances, 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 substantially the same zones. The subject property slopes down from Ridge Road and has an unusual triangular shape. These physical characteristics create special circumstances that would make it difficult to design a home on this site difficult without substantially intruding into the views of neighboring residences and without pushing the building away from the slope, and would deprive the owners of this property of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity to create similar designs on sloping lots. 2. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Numerous other properties in the RO -2 and similar zones have been granted variances for reduced front yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, particularly on steeply sloped sites. 3. The strict application of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Setf- created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a Variance. The strict application of the front yard setback requirement would push the proposed house away from the hill, resulting in a practical difficulty in constructing a dwelling with a garage that would easily connect to the adjacent street level. The strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement for this property would cause the house design to become more vertical and intrude further into the views for other homes in the vicinity. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. TOWN OF TZBURON n PAGE 5 OF 9 As described above, the proposed house could potentially project into the views fi•om the primary living areas of the homes at 601 & 600 Ridge Road. However, the granting of the variances would likely lessen the view impacts on these homes, as a house with less lot coverage and pushed further back on the site would likely block more of the views from these nearby homes. Frorn the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received one letter of support from the property owner at 623 Ridge Road. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16- 52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project" is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board wishes to approve the project and can make the findings "necessary to approve the requested variance, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Scott Woods, dated March 12, 2013 4. Submitted plans TowN OF ve 2BURON { rrt �,Y(''p, � PAGE 6 OF 4 E1 siiMI A`d, Boardmember Tollini said that he was also looking at the project from a fresh perspective. He said that he really appreciated when neighbors worked together to resolve disputes. He said that there were no variances requested and he did not find the house to be impactful on the neighborhood. Be stated that the regulations allow this property to count the entire lot toward their FAR and he did not understand the objections to the project based on numbers alone. He said that he did not see any impacts on the neighbors and he was ready to support as proposed. Chair Emberson said that the new design was so much better than the old one and showed what good architecture could accomplish. She thought that the project was nicely situated on the lot and would be a fine addition to the neighborhood. She said that the design issues seemed to have been resolved and she was comfortable approving the project. Boardmember Kricensky asked about the feeling of the other Boardmembers about the 9'6" ceiling height issue brought up by Boardmember Cousins, adding that if it were brought down, he did not think that it would have an impact on the neighborhood. Vice Chair Chong said that he was less concerned with the actual height and more concerned that an agreement had been reached with the neighbors. Planning Manager Watrous recommended an additional condition of approval that the application, as approved, would reflect that the master bathroom has been pulled back 3 feet and that the roof had been lowered six inches as shown on the plans as submitted at the meeting. ACTION: It was M/S (Cbong /Kricensky) that the request for 40 Del Mar Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with revised plans indicating the master bathroom had been pulled back 3 feet and that the roof had been lowered six inches, as shown on the plans submitted at the Vote: 4 -1 9. 510 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21304; Paul Wong and Julie Huh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a new single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The new two -story dwelling would result in and a total floor area of 4,002 square feet and lot coverage of 16.2% which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage in the RO -2 zone. The house would extend to within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot front yard setback required in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 091 -24. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 510 Ridge Road. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single - family dwelling. An existing detached accessory building will also be demolished as part of this project. The upper level of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen and a powder room. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms, three more bathrooms, and a family room. A two -car garage would be situated at the upper level. The TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/6/13 EXHIBIT PTO. ]7 driveway would be reconfigured and a new yard and play area would be installed in the location of the existing driveway and accessory building. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,002 square feet, which would be 63 square feet less than the 4,065 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 3,343 square feet (16.2 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage. A portion of the proposed house would be situated within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is also requested for reduced front yard setback. Paul Wong and Julie Huh, owners, thanked everyone for working with them over the past two years on their plans for their home. Mr. Wong said that they had reached out to and met with as many neighbors as they could, including planners and architects, in order to be sensitive and fair to those impacted by their project. He said that they spent several years looking for the right neighborhood for their young family and they were anxious to settle in. He said that they chose this architectural firm that was very well known with a lot of experience in developing and designing hillside homes. Mrs. Huh thanked the neighbors for their patience, support and cooperation and said that they looked forward to being good neighbors. Bob Swatt and Miya Muraki, architects, expressed interest in saving time and went right to the most important issues. Mr. Swatt explained that the project started two years ago and went through 9 different iterations. He described the numerous outreach efforts that were made to the most affected neighbor, Mr. McDermott, who was presented with numerous schemes over the course of two years in order to satisfy his objections. Mr. Swatt stated that other neighbors have had legitimate concerns that were being addressed and mitigated through landscaping, louvers and sloped skylights that had been dramatically reduced in their diameter. He said that the owners were also willing to have opaque glass in the garage door so that light would not seep through in order to mitigate light concerns. He said that the owners have worked for two years to make dramatic, substantial changes to the design and worked very hard to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Swatt stated that that there would be a slight loss of view from Mr. McDermott's residence but more view would be gained in other areas. The public hearing was opened. Michael Rex, architect representing Bruce Breitman, said that the project would impact multiple neighbors as referenced in the staff report. Mr. Rex stated that the project did not conform to the Town's design standards and was not ready to be approved. He presented photos of the area and highlighted the loss of view from his client's home, including potential light intrusion. He said that they were also concerned regarding the removal of vegetation that currently screens the existing home. He proposed five changes: reduction in glass, removing skylights, a better landscaping plan and evidence of proper screening of the home, darker colors and a rethought palette, and reconsider down lights in the eaves. He stated that they were willing to work with the applicant and requested direction from the Board that the applicant work with them to resolve these issues. k'HIBIT NO.--E TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 18 6/6/13 Riley Hurd, attorney representing Bruce Breitman, spoke in regard to the light pollution issue. He referenced the section of the zoning ordinance stating that proposed lighting should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution. Mr. Riley stated that light would escape the proposed louvers and be in their view. He urged the Board to consider other solutions such as using warmer color tones, architectural changes and landscaping. He stated that the project was not ready to be approved and needed to be continued to address these issues. Bruce Breitman stated that he has lived in his home for more than 24 years and has enjoyed the nighttime view for alI those years without interference. He stated that the applicants never approached him and he had invited them to come up and see his view. He said that every primary living space of his home would be affected by this new project and this would be an extreme invasion of his nighttime view. He said that he felt threatened to the point of hiring an attorney, an architect and a landscape architect in order to protect his nighttime views. He said that he would like to work with the owners on a friendly basis to reach a solution. Bob McDermott stated that he had not met with the owners until 2012 and was unaware of prior design iterations. He said that he bought his home 29 years ago and intended to live there forever and enjoyed by his extended family. He wished the owners all the best and said that he only wanted to resolve the issues. He stated that the existing home was built higher than would be approved today and does not justify a new project that would be as tall. He said that he would lose some view from his living room and gain some view in other areas but was concerned. Paula Little said that the applicants have gone out of their way to incorporate the neighbors in every step of the project. She said that the architect was outstanding and known throughout the world. She felt that residents cannot get everything they want, as things change over time. She believed that the light pollution issue had been addressed. She encouraged the Board to approve the plan. Anne woods stated that she has known the applicants Julie since they bought the house and said that they communicated extensively throughout the process. She looked at the plans and liked the house. She also felt that the owners showed integrity in working with the neighbors who would be affected by their project. Pam Peterson stated that she used to live at 510 Ridge Road where her family had built the existing house. She said that the applicants encouraged her to be a part of the process as she had a long history with the neighborhood. Ms. Peterson stated that you could not please all the people all the time and there would always be some issues as it was not possible to completely hide the house. She encouraged approval of the project as the owners have worked hard over the past two years at being great neighbors. Mr. Swart stated that they plan of reusing the foundation and footprint of the existing building so that was why it was located where it was and required a variance. He said that the skylights would not be seen by anybody and were important to the design. He provided samples of products to be used and photos of buildings with the same colors as proposed for this project to NO. � � TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 �HIBT ' 19 6/6/13 address questions about the colors from some of the neighbors. In his opinion, views would be improved, enhanced and a "win" for Mr. McDermott. Ms. Huh clarified that they purchased the home in 2010 and it would be three years in November that they have been working on the project. They wanted to keep the existing foundation in order to limit expenses and add just a little more space to the living areas including two additional bedrooms. The current plan's roofline is below the roof of the existing home and that the existing roof was much taller than what they were asking for. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that for Mr. McDermott, the issue appeared to be more of a view blockage than a light pollution issue and required a give and take. He said that Mr. McDermott's point that the old house would not be approved by today's guidelines struck a chord with him, but the Town also often presumes that a new home would be approved if the project stays within the existing building boundaries. He did not necessarily agree with Mr. Swatt that the view would be better for Mr. McDermott, but he did feel that it would essentially even out. He was not sure whether the parapet wall was justified. He felt that light pollution was the bigger issue, particularly from the proposed dining room. He said that the upper level would be wrapped in glass and highly visible from Mr. Breitman's home. He was not comfortable relying on louvers to cut off the light pollution, but noted that there is existing glazing in that part of the house. He noted that the house is not lit up at night now because no one is living in the house. He said that he was still uncomfortable with the light pollution and felt that it was problematic. He said that the other light pollution would most likely be minimal due to the parapet wall and the sloped skylights that were a nice part of the design but not a necessity. Boardmember Cousins doubted whether light would not emanate from the opaque garage glass door. Boardmember Tollini stated that opaque glass would not allow light to pass through. Plarn ing Manager Watrous stated that opaque glass should not allow any light to shine through, and if there were any question, there could be a performance standard added requiring zero light emanation. Boardmember Cousins said that there would be a lot of glass on the uphill side of the house, including the dining room, from which light could emanate. He stated that louvers can be effective. He believed that Mr. Breitman would lose more view than he gained. He proposed eliminating the long parapet and tilting the skylights to gain back some view. Vice Chair Chong said that the project was a handsome design and be liked the colors and materials. He appreciated the outreach toward the neighbors but thought that there was still potential for more work to be done, specifically, in regard to the excess glass and nighttime light pollution. He said that lie is not a big fan of louvers to solve light problems and he thought that the view would be somewhat improved for Mr. McDermott. He was not sure if the new design should have to correct the mistakes of the existing house, but he felt that there was a great opportunity to open up a new view. Overall, he thou gh t that this was a good design but that there may be some more work to be done. He also voiced concern over some of the suggestion for changes from the neighbors, noting that residents do not get to design their neighbors' homes. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. � ) 20 6/6113 Chair Emberson said that she was concerned about the light color of the roof and its reflectivity, but noted that it did not look too light in the photograph of material samples. She said that a house with a light color on a side of a hill could stick out and maybe should be darker. She did not think that that much glass was needed in the dining room and the windows could be reduced. She agreed with Boardmember Cousins that the removal of one skylight could open up a new view corridor. Boardmember Kricensky asked the architect about the reason for the two -foot change in floor level from the living room to the dining room. Mr. Swatt advised that it was for the homeowner to enjoy the view, as she was not very tall. Chair Emberson said that there was a big light pollution issue as Mr. Hurd stated. She suggested dropping the floor, with other little tweaks, in order to reach a consensus. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with the light pollution issue and thought that it was substantial, but could be fixed. He said that they could not design a home with no windows, noting that the Hillside Design Guidelines were not a law and were subjective as to what works. He said that the main concern was the dining room windows, with lights looking out to the neighbors. He said that the windows for the lower level hallway shine light from an active corridor and could possible be mitigated with landscaping. He said that the skylight, tinted and tilted at 30 degrees, would not be an issue. He said that the windows in the hallway and the north side of the dining- room need to be mitigated. Boardmernber Tollini said that Mr. Breitman's home has more light pollution issues. He said that the applicant would have a personal incentive to mitigate the view into, and light emanating from, the lower hallway as it was a private space and a bedroom hallway. Chair Emberson said that her main concern were the dining room and the skylight that may not be necessary. Boardmember Kricensky added that it was a very nice design and he liked the materials and colors. He felt that the roofing color was not too light. Chair Emberson thought that it would be a lovely house and that they were very close with just a few tweaks to the design. Boardmember Tollini said that specifically, the tweaks were related to glazing, concerns about the dining room, the parapet /skylight and the bedroom hallway. Chair Emberson agreed and said that the louvers were not acceptable and there was a definite need for a reduction in glazing. Boardmember Kricensky said that in terms of height, he felt that the previous home did not set the precedent. Chair Erberson concurred, and said that the Board would continue to protect views and follow the current guidelines. Planning Manager Watrous said that the meeting would need to be continued to the July 18`x', 2013 meeting because the first meeting in July would be cancelled. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 E-.,'HIBI ' NCB. 21 6!6/13 ACTION: It was MIS (Chong/Krieensky) to continue the application for 510 Ridge Road to the July 18, 2013 meeting. Vote: 5 -0. G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #S OF THE MAY 2, 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was MJS (Chong/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the May 2.2013 meeting, as written. Vote: 4 -0 -1. (Tollini abstained). H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #v EXHIBIT IBI 3 NNO._ :3 12 6/6113 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting July 18,201, Agenda Item: i 510 Ridge Road; File #21304 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single- Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage (Continued from June 6, 2013) The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single- family dwelling on property located at 510 Ridge Road. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single - family dwelling. An existing detached accessory building will also be demolished as part of this project. The application was first considered at the June 6, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring residents raised concerns about potential view blockage and lighting impacts from the proposed project. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, particularly with the amount of glazing on the house and issues of visual mass of nighttime light pollution. The applicant was directed to prepare revised project plans and the application was continued to the July 18, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The applicant has now submitted revised plans that include the following changes to the previous project design: The skylights have been reduced in depth to 18 inches and been angled 30 degrees away from the properties uphill from the site. The parapet that was situated between the skylights and the front of the house has been eliminated. The north - facing dining room window has been reduced in width from 13 feet; 8 inches to 3 feet, 8 inches. Vertical wood screens are proposed in front of the lower level corridor windows. The garage door has been changed to a "back- painted, etched (opaque and non - reflective) glass" material. .. PAGE 1 of 6 The revised plans would increase the floor of the proposed house by 6 square feet to be 4,008 square feet, which would be 57 square feet less than the 4,065 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would still cover a total of 3,343 square feet (16.2%) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. A variance is therefore still requested for excess lot coverage. The revised house design would be situated within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is also still requested for reduced front yard setback. ANALYSIS Design Issues The revised project design appears to respond to most of the concerns raised at the June 6, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The side windows for the upper level dining room have been substantially reduced in size. The wood screens for the lower level corridor windows should reduce light impacts from most angles. The change in the garage door design should reduce light impacts from the garage itself. The angled skylights and their reduced size should eliminate any light concerns for uphill neighbors. The elimination of the parapet would slightly reduce the visual mass of the roofline. However, the back side of the angled skylights essentially replaces the parapet as a visual obstacle that would be 3 feet taller than the roof at the front of the house. The revised project design would only minimally change the overall visual volume of the proposed house. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the RO -2 zone, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. As noted in the June 6, 2013 staff report, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances. PUBLIC COMMENT Since the June 6. 2013 meeting, the Town has received letters regarding the revised plans from the property owners at 600 & 601 Ridge Road. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16- 52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board wishes to approve the project, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. TOWN OF TiBUROM PAGE 2 OF 6t EXHIBIT I�7Q. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Supplemental application information 3. Design Review Board staff report dated June 6, 201' ) 4. Minutes of the June 6, 2013 Design Review Board meeting 5. Letter from Michael Heckmann, dated June 26, 2013 6. Letter from Robert McDermott, dated July 9, 2013 7. Submitted plans 'F oWN OF SZBURON gg q��p 9 q, PAGE 3 OF 6s py� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FILE #21304 (AS AMENDED AT THE JULY 18, 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING) This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on February 5, 2013, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of February 28, 2013 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 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 fi-om the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures. 7. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non - reflective mamrer (minimum 25 %) and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 8. 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 TOWN OF TieuRON E-6K Silk€ i NO. PAGE 4 OF 6 made of durable, weather - resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following infomlation: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall be posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 9. The project shall comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The Tiburon Fire Protection District recommends the flowing conditions of approval: a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2. 10 C. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Maria. CFC 304.1.2 d. Pressure regulators are not allowed on fire sprinkler lines. If a pressure regulator is needed for the domestic water line, it shall be located on the domestic line only. 10. All requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met. 11. The applicants shall obtain any necessary sewer permits from 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. 12. 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. All encroachments, such as driveway approaches, sidewalks, mailboxes, small drainage facilities and short- height landscaping, need to be processed through a standard Public Works encroachment permit application with plans or schematics for review. Unless the encroachment is minor or routine in nature, a permit shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Encroachment that must be recorded by the property owner with the County of Marin. The new driveway approach shall comply with Marin County Uniform Standard drawing #130. The proposed Acacia longiflora landscaping is not permitted in the public right -of -way. The water meter is TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO, PAGE 5 OF 6 permitted within the right -of -way, but the backflow and pressure regulator must be located on private property. 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. 13. The Bay Laurel trees on the approved landscaping plan shall be replaced with a different species that will grow more quickly to a maximum height of 20 to 25 feet. Planning Division staff shall review and approve the replacement tree species prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. 14. The redwood tree on the property shall be removed prior to issuance of final building certificate of occupancy. TOWN OF TiBURON EXHIBIT NO.___1_- PAGE 6 OF 6 MINUTES #11 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 18, 2013 The meeting was opened at 7:07 p.m. by Chair Emberson. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emberson, Vice Chair Chong, Boardmembers Cousins, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: None Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous recommended that applicants' presentations be limited to 10 minutes and public comments to 3 minutes due to the length of the agenda. D. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to nominate Vice Chair Chong as Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion carried: 5 -0. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) to nominate Boardmember Cousins as Vice Chair of the Planning= Commission. Motion carried: 5 -0. E. OLD BUSINESS 510 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21304; Paul Wong and Julie Huh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct a new single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The new two -story dwelling would result in and a total floor area of 4,002 square feet and lot coverage of 16.2% which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage in the RO -2 zone. The house would extend to within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot front yard setback required in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 091 -24. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single- family dwelling on property located at 510 Ridge Road. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single - family dwelling. The application was first TIBURON D.R.A. MINUTES #11 EXHIBIT NO._ 7/18/13 considered at the June 6, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring residents raised concerns about potential view blockage and lighting impacts from the proposed project. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, particularly with the amount of glazing on the house and issues of visual mass of nighttime light pollution. The applicant was directed to prepare revised project plans and the application was continued to the July 18, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. The applicant has now submitted revised plans that include the following changes to the previous project design: The skylights have been reduced in depth to 18 inches and been angled 30 degrees away from the properties uphill from the site. The parapet that was situated between the skylights and the front of the house has been eliminated. The north - facing dining room window has been reduced in with fi-om 13 feet, 8 inches to 3 feet, 8 inches. Vertical wood screens are proposed in front of the lower level corridor windows. The garage door has been changed to a "back- painted, etched (opaque and non - reflective) glass" material. The revised plans would increase the floor of the proposed house by 6 square feet to be 4,008 square feet, which would be 57 square feet less than the 4,065 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would still cover a total of 3,343 square feet (16.2 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. A variance is therefore still requested for excess lot coverage. The revised house design would be situated within 27 feet, 6 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is also still requested for reduced front yard setback. Bob Swatt, architect, described the issues raised at the June 6`h meeting and explained the project changes. He said that the skylights were reduced in size to 18 inches wide and would now be sloped so they cannot be seen. He said that the skylight shroud was reduced in height by 6 inches. He said that they added a wood screen at the lower level to reduce the visibility of the windows, and now glazing would not be seen due to the depth and angle of the wood screen. He said that they reduced the width of the dining room window to 3 feet, 8 inches, which would be roughly the size of the existing window in that location. He showed photos of views from 601 Ridge Road and noted that the view that would be gained would be 3 times the size of the view that would be lost. He said that the base of Angel Island would now be visible, as well as Ayala Cove, each of which are not currently visible. He showed some photos of views from 600 Ridge Road and stated that there would not be much of a change in those views. He showed the front elevation at night currently and proposed and noted that the lighting would actually be less in the proposed front elevation. He said that there are significantly more windows facing the neighbors currently than there will be after the building is constructed. He said that they propose to reuse the existing foundation to save money and is also more sustainable. He said that they could add a wing wall to the side of the building to prevent glare to 600 Ridge Road, but this would reduce the views somewhat for 601 Ridge Road. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/18/13 EXHIBIT NO. � �� The public hearing was opened. Miles Berger said he was asked to take a look at the design of this house by a neighbor. He said that his client's home is quite a bit higher than others and the skylights and lighting were their main concern. He said that the applicant had completely solved all of the issues with lighting and skylights and the skylights would be completely invisible to neighbors. He stated that the design would lower the overall height of the existing house, which would further enhance the views of the neighbors. He believed that the design was beautiful and urged an approval of the project. He said that reusing existing foundations is one of the first things he looks at when talking to his own clients. Bruce Breitman said that the project sits in the center of his view of San Francisco. He was concerned that the nighttime lighting would interfere with his view. He thanked the applicant for making the changes to the plan and noted that they had partially addressed his concerns. He said that there were only a few more issues to deal with and his attorney and the architect would address these issues. He pointed out that the applicant never came to his home to see the view, but he could support the project with the changes he requested tonight. Michael Heckman, architect representing Mr. Breitman, said that the proposed landscaping still presented some issues for his client. He stated that the three California Bay Laurel trees would grow too tall and would block the view from Mr. Breitman's home. He stated that the existing redwood tree could become a view blockage issue and requested a lower - growing substitution for those four trees. He said that the existing 30 inch fir tree provides some screening of the existing house and he did not think that it should be removed. He showed an aerial photo of the neighborhood and pointed out pine trees that have gotten very close to their complete life teen and need to be removed within five years, which would completely expose the house to Mr. Breitman and he was concerned about light pollution. Mr. Heckmann stated that there were also concerns that the house does not conform with the hillside guidelines and he recommended lowering the entire structure, which could be done and still accomplish the applicants' goals. Riley Hurd, attorney representing Mr. Breitman, asked that the wing wall be added to the project. He said that they also request a screen for the lower window, but the slats need to be specified to have a 3'h inch gap. He said that the front entry windows also must be addressed and he suggested clerestory windows and if that cannot be done, he requested another screen in that area. He said that he was shocked by the nighttime photos of the view from Mr. Breitman's home and said that they are not a realistic representation because his clients viewed a contractor installing bulbs and taking photos of the area from a ladder. Bob McDermott said that he had four- issues with the project: noncompliance with hillside guidelines, encroachment of his view of Raccoon Straits, excessive light from the windows that would impact nighttime views and too many tall trees that could grow into views and lead to disputes in the future. He said that he did not understand why an application for a new house would not conform to the hillside guidelines. It seemed very strange to him to retain the existing foundation. He understood that the applicants would like a view of the Golden Gate Bridge and lowering the home would compromise that, but he felt that the Golden Gate Bridge was incidental to their panoramic view. He said that the lot is challenging but he thought that the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7/18113 r E ETBI T NO. `� owner knew that and should not expect exceptions to be granted to the hillside guidelines. He said that he would like to see the profile of the house lowered. He said that the skylight over the living room could be removed, the skylight over the stairwell be reduced, and the ceiling heights reduced. Pam Peterson said that the Golden Gate Bridge was not incidental to the view but was a very big part of the house's planned view. She said that it is not easy to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to lower the house. She felt that the applicants were trying to be sustainable and reuse and had done an excellent job of trying to accommodate everyone. She pointed out a Japanese maple tree, which is between the houses and is 20 feet tall, that blocks the view from Mr. McDermott's house for the most of the year. She encouraged the Design Review Board to approve the project. Paula Little said that life changes and pointed out that this area used to be cow pasture and is now full of beautiful homes. She said that it is delightful to see different houses come into the area, and it is incredible that they would use the same foundation. She said that the applicants have tried to accommodate neighbors for the past two years and that is a long time and a lot of money to be put into a project. She asked the Design Review Board to let them build the home. Mark Swanson said that he has worked with Swatt Architects and they spend a lot of time studying the neighborhood before building a project. He said that lie has built projects in the area on existing foundations and that removing foundations creates a huge burden on a neighborhood. He said that the wood screens were similar to something he is doing on two projects and he said that he was surprised to see the large amount of light reduction that they created. Scott Woods said that he cannot see the house from his home but he thought that it was a beautiful design and would be a great addition to their neighborhood. He thought that everything has been addressed, concessions had been made, and the project should be approved. Jim Bradanini, landscape architect, agreed that the three proposed bay trees are tall and said that they are rethinking those trees and considering olive trees as a lower canopy tree for that corner. Boardmember Emberson asked what the height would be for those trees. Mr. Bradanini said that the serpentine soil would not allow the trees to reach their mature height, but he expects olive trees to reach about 20 feet in height. He said that there are two fairly significant pittosporum trees that they would like to retain and supplement with additional plantings, and his client would be happy to remove the redwood tree. He noted that the two existing cedar trees have been proposed to be removed because they have no long ternn value and with their new plantings they would establish a denser screening in that area. Paul Wong, owner, said that they have adhered to the hillside guidelines and would not interrupt any significant or iconic landmark views because the neighbor has a panoramic view. He said that he could not understand what significant view his neighbor has that would necessitate lowering the house. Julie Huh, owner, said that they started working on the project two years ago and the original design had been whittled down. She said that frustration and disappointment had been created at TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 NCB. 7118/13 each change and they have worked with their neighbors to mitigate concerns. She said light is very important in their home for her family. Mr. Wong said that if the proposed garage was moved to any other location it would block the neighbor's view of Ayala Cove. He said their existing building pad is so far low below the road that if they lowered it more the hours would be much lower than the existing homes. Chair Chong asked if the large tree in the corner would be removed. Mr. Bradanini said that the cedar tree would be removed and replaced with more plantings further up the hill. He noted that the further they move the plantings up the hill the more effective the screening would be. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said he thought that the project was in compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines, as it would be cut into the hillside considerably and lowering it would be an unnatural thing to do if they are going to use the existing foundation. He said that lowering the house would impede the view of the Golden Gate Bridge and he did not believe that it was equitable to trade their view of the Golden Gate Bridge for a neighbor's view of Raccoon Straits. He thought that some minor things could be addressed such as the screening walls and nighttime views. He did not trust the nighttime view photos because they are too easy to manipulate. He pointed out this is a town and there will be some light from side windows and the side windows can be seen now. He thought that the proposed louver detail would work to shield the light, but he would like to know the measurements and the materials to be used. He said that the views of Ayala Cove would be unproved from Mr. McDermott-s house and he did not think that anyone would see the skylights. Boardmember Tollini said that at the last review of this project he had moderate concerns that could be addressed, primarily the dining room window and light pollution affecting neighbors' views. Most changes were needed on the dining room glazing, and that was addressed by a substantial reduction in glazing. He agreed with Boardmember Kricensky's skepticism about the photos showing nighttime lighting. He appreciated the wing wall idea but did not think that it was a reasonable compromise as it would adversely affect Mr. McDermott's view. He said that substituting olive trees concerned him because olive trees are slow - growing and do not fill in quickly. He agreed that the bay laurels would have been too tall but he was not thrilled with the choice of olive trees. He agreed that the redwood tree could be removed and seemed to be a good solution. He visited the McDermott and Breitman homes twice each, and he felt the project would result in fairly minor intrusions on the views of those houses. He supported the application and said that he might suggest some conditions of approval regarding the landscaping. He said that he really liked the house and felt that the applicants had done a very thoughtful job to design a house that would work for the neighborhood. Boardmember Emberson said that she was surprised when she visited the site to see that the owners have more of a slot view and therefore cannot lower the house. She said that the foundation was already lowered and was dug into the hillside when the house was first built. She agreed that the bay laurels would be too tall and the olive trees might not fill in well, and thought that staff could suggest another tree choice. She said that this is suburbia and not Wyoming and TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 EXHIBIT NO 7/18/13 that there would be less light intrusion than the neighbors expect, along with a lower roofline. She voiced support of the application with the minor change in the landscape plan. She said the applicant had done everything they were asked to do and cannot be asked to do more. Vice Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that it is an excellent idea to reuse foundations and that lowering the floor levels would be very detrimental to the view. He said that the design meets the hillside guidelines and is stepped into the hillside. He said that the house would improve the views from Mr. McDermott's house. He said that the reduction of the dining room window was substantial. and the depth of the louvers would provide substantial screening from the lighting. Chair Chong agreed and said though that when the construction was over the home would be much better looking and the view will be improved from Mr. McDermott's house. He said that the applicant made a very good effort to reduce light pollution from Mr. Breitman's house and he supported letting staff make suggestions for landscape changes. Boardmember Kricensky asked about the materials to be used for the louvers, and Mr. Swatt said that the louvers would be made of wood and the same material as the siding. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson /Kricensky) that the request for 510 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval to remove the redwood tree and replace the bay laurels at discretion of staff with a species that will grow quickly to about 20 -25 feet and provide better screening than olive trees. Vote: 5 -0. 2. 545 SILVERADO DRIVE: File No. 713029; Brian and Sue Peery, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling. Additions would be made to the upper and ground levels of the house, with raised rooflines and a new garage at the front of the property. The floor area of the house would be increased by 564 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 2,222 square feet, with an additional 504 square feet of garage space, and would increase the lot coverage on the site by 561 square feet to 2,118 square feet (19.3 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 055 - 082 -23. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 545 Silverado Drive. The original project design proposed to expand an upper level master bedroom suite to add closet space, a larger bathroom and a deck off the front. A bridge was to connect the rear of the upper level to the upper portion of the rear yard. An existing carport on the lower level was to be removed and replaced with a new garage closer to the street, connected by a new driveway. A new family room was to be added to the front of the ground floor and a new bedroom would be added to the rear of that level. The rooflines of the house were to be modified, most notably the steeply pitched upper level roofline that would be changed to a shed roof sloping upward toward the front of the site. An existing chimney was to be removed and a new level rear yard area was proposed to the rear of the site. ry \a IM ICI( . TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 7118113 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 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 fi-ames 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 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. 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. hi 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 1,1�,HIMT NO. & . 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. (r) 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 fin-ther 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. RECOnSWEIR.4TlON 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 �Ly; ggip g �7 y SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS 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 Councihnembers, 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. ST'ORYPOLES 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 conmected, 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 tbree - hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the Weal 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 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 - malting 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, 20101 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL-MEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Torn Council Resolution No. 17 -2010 0311712010 M1 � F:Yfpy�2 n yrx as I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • Conditional Use Permit • Precise Development Plan • Secondary Dwelling Unit • Zoning Text Amendment • Rezoning or Prezoning • General Plan Amendment • Change of Address • Design Review (DRB) • Design Review (Staff Level) • Variance(s) # • Floor Area Exception • Tidelands Permit • Sign Permit • Tree Permit I i • Tentative Subdivision Map • Final Subdivision Map • Parcel Map • Lot Line Adjustment • Condominium Use Permit • Certificate of Compliance • Other SITE ADDRESS: 510 Ridge Road PROPERTY SIZE: 20,647 $r PARCEL NUMBER: 059 - 091 -24 ZONING: PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Wong and Julie Huh MAILING ADDRESS: 775 24th Avenue, San Francisco 94121 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER: ARCHITECUDESIGNERIENGINEER Swatt I Miers Architects E -MAIL: mingwong888 @gmaii.com MAILING ADDRESS: 5845 Doyle Street, Suite 104, Emeryville, CA 94608 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: (510) 985 -9779 E-MAIL: Miya Muraki mmuraki @swattmiem.com Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): Addition and remodel to an existing 2 -story home, including removing an existing detached garaged and attaching the garage to the main house. 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 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM —NEW RESIDENCE OR MAIN BUILDING REv 7/11 r ;�,� rot,-V —LI1t .t� 1A NO S.�L12 i CC 3) of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify drat the itiforuration liven is true and correct to the best of my knowledge mid belief, I understandthat t1w requested approval is for my benefit (or ihat ofmy princilaal), Therefore, ifflieTown grants the approval, with or without conditions, slid that action is chaticng�d by a third party, i will be responsible for defelidiligagain tthis chatletige, I tllerefore up-ce to accept this reslaonsibiliity for defense at the request of the Tom and also agree to defend, indemnify mid hold flit Town harmless franc any costs, cla ims or liabllities ari'shig from the approval, including, wMiout Iimi tat Ion, any awardofattorney's fees that miVAI result from the "j"v cliultellpe. Sinshire: " mate: o *If rather tlxotn rrse+ner, naust h alT as aud.imiTration letter frons the momer ear esidence rule facto control ref tlae aramr�t }� r+r lrrc�nifces faar,�aterlanses of jlYttg tiatr ralrlallrrttirrn i~ MCE TO APP UCANTS 1'ursuamlio Cali foams Govoaistncul CW& Section 05945, aipnlicmis au p ectucm to Tmcivc itoolicc frown tisc Towit or rilmm ofmyyouxul imrazy>siccl�irw), TSOIaatalsioaatio torttrncsa% llwcGcrrcr4TlaanTrzraiazg43rrEiacusc¢ SlzccificPisa• ,oraasordi=Wcuf'%tiitgbuitiiatg or;��tiugpaauuis. if youvvisbisorccciv si�isicoticc,tlialyontaeeuganal awxiiicmaoucaliRiltet* cv imsacCoizunuaely% 3avclonnleullolzwilw:latdxtolaa a miliug liar for cucb truTmkc;, u u t aantsi sf Py wlziclz aylxx of garo{Krsnls vcou wiclz i <? xc civ ixotio ulaoaz. Tl c waiiidz xoncct inusiulso sitwify utc lcngilz or iiim yooit wisit io acaaiw such anoli.-on` {s }, anzd you =W lnoi ide to ilw Towit a suplsiy of staunlX4 selrc ddresrsd caovelsalacs i;? f�ilitutc atoiiiicaiion. AlOalicaips xlssll i>e icz€lxsr�iloie for iziuiutiitznzg ilr :zat�laly orsuclz sasv�cl�;`s ito Orc'Sown for Ilue due ttionz or ow; iinic psTW rCquestoxt for aoccivh% sitclz a miccs ,nw iwtiuc will also pTov°i& tltc status: ortw propoal maul alts; date. ofuity public 1s aTiop itmto t wliclt leavctmcn sol, The Town will dc^tcumiazc wlwcilter a proiloocai is nasooiwvbly aclutol ioyour psxactiIW ul*nli"ion, anhi wlvj ilw 3KAI x= on ilea basis, Suclznoticcmmitbe111XIM ctallcimevcoysixwxt,l; sum zlmllKacisawckutgctolin eosiucutc000ftheazo OC*Awmldrsasluzalolycafrcxiyou zwlicatiorc. Rcotuxxis s1widd In aaiui loa ua: Town or'"burou Community Oct-elotauiast Mpartnwal I'iannt,ag Oh- on ISMIS Tiburon Ikmlevard Tgaurota, CA 94920 is tst A.if. -7390 (TO) (415) -0 lH2431grux) 5 1'aiicitwRnmir7w rr»cnllcrl= ouiallavcan natru,roxat i+atnt;uria iuw7 +11 , -< HIB T CIO. 510 Ridge Road, Tiburon APN: 059 - 091 -24 DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM FOR NEW RESIDENCE OR OTHER MAIN BUILDING Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): Use of Site (example: single family residential, retail, office, service, etc.): f Existing: There is an existing 2 -story home with a steep driveway leading to a detached: garage. Proposed: This application is to remodel and add square tootage to the existing nouse. I he new garage would be attached to the house, but would require a corner of the garage to be in the front setback. Square Footage of Landscape Area: 6048 SF TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM .. EXISTINO PROPOSED CALCULATED PER ZONE (Wpxistirlg ,' . (reflects- proposed building is to be construction) demolished) Yards (Setbacks from property 2T -6" line)(Section 16- (22' -8 1/2" with 100.020(y)` 43' -1" ft. the overhang) ft. Front Rear N/A ft. Right Side 43' -11" ft. 15' -1/2" ft. ft. ft. Left Side 151-9" ft 15'-7" ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height 30' -9" 28' -6" ft (Section 16- 30.050)` ft. ft. ft. Lot Coverage 1657 3343 (Section 16- 30.120(6)' sq.ft, sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area 8 % 16.2 % % % Gross Floor Area (Section 16- 100.020(F)` 2515 sq.ft. 4438 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Net Floor Area (if office building) (Section 16- 32.040 Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Number of Parking Spaces Provided 4 spaces 4 spaces spaces spaces "Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 16 (Z TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST DESIGN REwew APPucanoN FoRm - NEW RESIDENCE OR MAIN BUILDING REv 7/11 PAGE 5 EXHIBIT NO. ee'I oF-31 )ting). 510 Ridge Road, Tiburon APN: 059 - 091 -24 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (415)- 435 -7390 www.d.fiburon.ca.us 0=111414041111 111161ZATIA ce'.+ 11 04Z A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and /or hardships must be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 16 -4.3 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. WHAT VARIANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING? This Magnitude Zoning Existing Application Of Variance Condition Requirement Condition Proposes Requested 30' -0" 43' -1" 27' -6" (22' -8 112" with 2' -6" Front Yard Setback the overhang) Rear Yard Setback Left Side Yard Setback Right Side Yard Setback Lot Coverage 3097 SF 115.0% 1657 SF / 8.0% 3343 SF / 16.2% 1.2% Height Parcel Area Per Dwelling Unit Usable Open Space Parking Expansion of Nonconformity Other (Please describe): APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON Rev, 08/06 Page 1 Pt H Crr 31 SWATT I MIERS ARCHITECTS Z _ # DATE: January 22, 2013 PROJECT: Wong / Huh Addition and Remodel - 510 Ridge Road (1114) SUBJECT: Application for Variance TO: Town of Tiburon CC: Miya Muraki at Swatt I Miers Architects has prepared the following Memorandum. Please notify Miya Mur aki via email at mmuraki(dswattmiers.com or by phone at 510- 985 -9779 for any corrections or clarifications to the information noted below. We are proposing a remodel and addition to an existing 2 -story home at 510 Ridge Road. We are requesting a variance to exceed the lot coverage of 15% by 1.2% to a total of 16.2% and a variance to reduce the required front setback from 30' to 27' -6" (22' -8 1/2" with the overhang). Our responses to the variance application statements regarding LOT COVERAGE are as follows: 510 Ridge Road is almost a triangular site, narrowing towards the rear. The lot is steep, dropping an average of approximately 46' from the property tine at Ridge Road to the eastern tip of the lot, for an average slope of 202%. To preserve the views of the uphill neighbors, we are proposing a design that has most of the floor area on the lower level, resulting in more lot coverage. The proposed design keeps most of the upper level mass of the existing house, and the total floor area is within the allowable amount. A terrace has been designed on the eastern side of the house to allow the family to enjoy the outdoors from the public level of their home. 2. It is our understanding that sites with similar characteristics within the same zone have been granted variances for lot coverage, including 440 Ridge Road to 17.6% and 490 Ridge Road to 15.6 %. 3. We have worked closely with the uphill neighbor for over a year and have tried to minimize the impact to their views by adding square footage to the lower level. This has resulted in a larger building footprint, increasing the lot coverage. 4. In order to provide our clients, a young family, with the square footage they desire while preserving views of others, we have expanded the house in areas that affect the neighbors the least. Most of the addition is below the level of Ridge Road, and we believe the proposed design is in keeping with the massing of other homes in the area. We believe the remodeled home will become a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Our responses to the variance application statements regarding the REDUCED FRONT SETBACK are as follows: 1. The current driveway leading to the detached garage is very steep, and our client has difficulty navigating it. We would like to attach the garage to the existing home and create a driveway with a more subtle slope. Due to the orientation of the current house to the front property line, adding a legal sized garage results in the building encroaching on the front setback by 2' -6" at the southwest corner. 2. It is our understanding that 347 Ridge Road was granted a reduced front setback to 28' -8" and also got a variance to exceed the 15% lot coverage. i, b E BIT i.`d li, ^_�!__ - --�- 'p` J Ot✓3 1 5845 DOYLE STREET SUITE 104, EMERYVILLE, CA 94608 T: 510.985.9779 F: 510.985.0116 wwwswattmiers.com SWATT I MIERS ARCHITECTS Memorandum Page 2 of 2 3. The existing driveway is extremely steep, having a 30% slope for a majority of its length. At our clients'request, the proposed design has an attached the garage with a shorter, more manageable driveway. By adding the garage to the footprint of the existing house, we have to encroach on the front setback in the southwest corner. The new garage is at a higher level of the existing upper level of the house and the driveway has a 5% slope for the first 15 feet outside the garage and has a 14% slope at the steepest point. 4. We believe the proposed design will result in safer access for vehicles entering and exiting the property at 510 Ridge Road. P• Cc OF:�i Dan Watrous, Planning Manager July 7, 2013 office of Design Review Tiburon Town Nall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 510 Ridge Road Dear Design Review Board ( "DRB ") Members and Mr. Watrous, Thank you very much for your time and consideration. As you know, we presented our proposal for a new home on 510 Ridge Rd. on June @. The Board had concerns over light pollution stemming from the proposed dining room and the parapet, amongst other items. As we stated, we have been working closely with our neighbor, Mr. Bob McDermott, for approximately two years. We proposed multiple iterations of a design and made numerous concessions to him, Unfortunately, we could not agree on the final height of the proposed home, although we had reduced it to provide Mr. McDermott better views of the coastline and Ayala Cove, We ultimately had to submit our proposal to the Board. We would like to add seven additional feetto the upper level of the north side of the home (not ten feet, as mentioned in his letter). In this space, there exists a large tree with leaves that bloom at least eight months out of the year, which already blocks a part of his Raccoon Straits view. In requesting to extend our home this amount, we made a concession to Mr. McDermott: to lower the proposed height of the home, so that he might have a better view of Ayala Cove and the coastline. We felt this would be an equitable trade off. As mentioned at the last meeting, in surface area, what is lost versus what is gained appears equal. When we purchased the home two and half years ago, we were impressed with the strong presence of this home, and we assumed, like many people would, that we could add to the home or construct a new home whose height was at least the height of the existing house. We understood the 31 -foot height limit, and we have kept our design within this requirement. Afterthe last meeting, we reviewed multiple minutes of the DRB meetings. There were several projects requesting a second, third, or fourth story addition, from one or two -level homes, which passed. We even read a proposal requesting a height variance for a 54 -foot home, with the architect agreeing to lower the height by three feet, and this proposal passed. Recently, the proposal for a new four -story home at 1940 Straits View passed, despite a couple of neighbors voicing concerns with the height increase of the garage, compared to the original garage. We understand each proposal has its own unique qualities and circumstances which may not render it possible for comparison to our project; however, we just want to reiterate that we are not asking for additional height in our proposal, but rather, we are reducing it. We do not understand the rationale for opening a new or greater view corridor for a neighbor, at our cost. it would be unfair and would penalize us. In his letter, Mr. McDermott mentions the necessity of the skylights. We feel as much light as possible, emanating from multiple directions, is important to our family's physical and mental health. The proposed house has minimal windows on the east side and skylights would provide additional ambient P.-? OT I/ lighting to the living room and stairwell. Due to concerns of light pollution affecting our uphill neighbors, we tilted the skylight at an angle, as recommended by Mr. Miles Berger. We proposed a "Shroud" to cover the skylights, which would help reduce light pollution somewhat and camouflage the skylights. We understand Mr. McDermott has owned his home for over twenty years and that he is respected in his position as a Tiburon Commissioner. We are newcomers and are not yet affiliated with the town. It is our intention to become good neighbors and a productive member of the community. We know the Board faces many challenges and we have every expectation that they will be objective and fair in their decision. We hope the Board will be supportive of our proposal. Again, thank you very much for your time and your consideration. Sincerely, fdiie Huh and Paul Wong %1 HIM NCB. `v v`F3 i Dan Watrous July 18, 2013 Planning Manager LATE MAIL# Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Jul- 1 / 2013 Re: 510 Ridge Road Dear Design Review Board and Mr. Watrous, This letter is in response to the letter written by Mr. McDermott, dated July 16, 2013. Mr. McDermott states that the revised design does not comply with the Town of Tiburon's Guidelines for hillside dwellings. We believe our design adheres to these guidelines more so than most other homes for these reasons: when the existing house pad was built, the builders cut into the hillside as much as ten feet to reduce effective visual bulk. As a result, we're hampered by a very steep driveway and our house sits lower relative to the road than all the other houses on Ridge Rd., relative to the sloping road. Clearly our design conforms to Goal 1, Principal 1, to "Cut building into hillside to reduce effective visual bulk ". Goal 1 Principle 2: "Terrace building using the slope. Use roofs of lower levels for the decks of open spaces of upper levels." Our proposed home does in fact terrace using both the side and down slope. Our design does use roofs of lower levels for the deck open spaces of upper levels. Our terraced decks do not increase building bulk when seen from nearby and the building correctly fits into the ground, which minimizes the effect on the hillside. Goal 1 Principle 3: "break up masses of building with horizontal and vertical elements ". If one examines our plan elevations it can very clearly be seen that we've broken up each exterior elevation, in order to reduce visual bulk. It is not possible for us to build further downhill because of the lot's eccentric shape. In addition, if the house is lowered further by building a deeper foundation, we would lose the slot view of the Golden Gate, because our neighbor's home at 500 Ridge Rd (which runs parallel to our lot) blocks this view. Since our existing house is already cut into the hillside once very deeply, if we were forced to dig deeper a second time, we would be penalized twice. This would not be fair. If each successive rebuilding would to require further cuts into the hillside newer houses would sit at subsequently decreasing levels relative to the road. Mr. McDermott claims that a 43 year old foundation cannot be reused. Our architects have reused old foundations successfully in their designs, and these projects have been published. K I�BIT NO. ,7- -- ?: C4 cf�- 3► In fact, we have a letter from a well- respected Marin County fou. dation engineer who reports that our foundation can be reused. Guideline G1 P4 which states "angularforms which slope in opposite direction to slope of hill destroy relationship of hillside and building and increase the effective bulk." Roof forms which "slope approximates that of hillside and follows its direction. Building hugs the ground form better ". Our proposed roof hugs the ground, as it is flat, further in conformance of this Guideline. We conform to Goal 2, Principal 10: "Remotely located outbuildings are discouraged ". We are proposing to relocate our detached garage to be attached to the house, which will further reduce the effective bulk. Goal 2 Principle 13 "Limits for heights of dwellings above grade are strictly adhered to" Mr. McDermott desires an even better view than he already has. Our house is at least five feet lower than the permitted height, created from the excavated reduced grade. In addition it is lower than the existing home's ridge line by at least six to eight inches. We're at least six feet lower than the existing home's clerestory. We have clearly designed this project to Goal 3, Principal 1, which seeks to preserve existing views as much as possible and allow new dwellings access to views similar to those enjoyed from existing dwellings. The "slot view" from 601 Ridge Rd of Raccoon Straights is greatly improved on the left -hand side of the existing clerestory as our proposed roof has been pushed much lower than our existing roof and our neighbor will enjoy of the iconic Angel Island coastline on the right -hand side, which he has never had. Mr. McDermott claims that our proposed design would take away a "significant portion of the 'slot' view of Raccoon Strait, but does not mention that this slot view has for many decades been blocked approximately 75% by a large tree. Our neighbor suggests we lower our ceiling height from 10 feet to 9 feet in the dining area, which he insinuates is excessive. But he fails to disclose that his own living room and dining room ceiling soars to nearly 16ft while the rest of his home ceiling heights are at least 9 to loft. The lower level ceiling height of our proposed home is only 8ft in height. For a custom designed home, it is not unusual to have ceiling height at a minimum of 10 feet. Mr. McDermott continues to contend that he owns -100% of the views across our lot, towards Angel Island and Raccoon Straights. Goal III, Principal 8, states that a view across a vacant lot is often considered to be a "Borrowed " view, which is likely to be compromised by the eventual development of the vacant lot. Consideration may be given to preserving portions of a borrowed view if this is the only substantial view for a neighboring home" 2 E -_H1BT`I` NO. `7 to OF2)1 Mr. McDermott has enjoyed views of Raccoon Straits which if our lot was considered vacant would need at least to be shared. From his home and viewing deck he is able to enjoy panoramic views from the Golden Gate Bridge to far north as well as views of Raccoon Straits. Since the Guidelines clearly state that "Consideration may be given to preserving portions of a borrowed view IF THIS IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL VIEW FOR A NEIGHBORING HOME" and our proposed home boosts his view of a known landmark, Ayala Cove, and Angel Island coastline we in effect are increasing his substantial view. It should be quite obvious that we do not need to offer this increase in view to our neighbor especially at an unequal detriment to our family. Although it was suggested by Mr. McDermott that our proposed design does not conform to Hillside Design Guidelines from the analysis of our design one can see that we have gone very much out of our way in attempts to satisfy the endless demands of one neighbor and that definitely our proposed home conforms to the Guidelines very effectively. Mr. McDermott reports that our skylights are not necessary. Our updated design has greatly reduced the size of our proposed skylights. These skylights are not worsening his view more than his existing view and many homes in our neighborhood have larger skylights. But most importantly, we find our skylights to be essential because we desire an abundance of day and night natural light from the ceiling, throughout this central and most important part of the house (an area that will be used by all our family members). In addition, we understand the health benefits of natural light, the design considerations of ambient light and the soothing effects of the moonlight. Mr. McDermott suggests that he and his "immediate neighbors" would rather not have views of the parapet /skylight. We are not aware of any other neighbor who has concerns over the height of our proposed house. Mr. McDermott also expresses concerns about light emissions from windows. Our existing home has 16 windows facing uphill. Our proposed plan has eight, the largest of which, will be covered by a fixed wooden screen, landscaping and cannot be seen by Mr. McDermott from his property as it is both screened and tucked into the hillside in accordance with Hillside Design Guidelines G1 P1,4,8,9. We are disappointed that Mr. McDermott has not acknowledged the time and effort we committed in the past years and the multiple height reductions we've made to please him. In his recent letter, he makes numerous suggestions regarding the design of our home, that make us feel that he wants to be in control of the design , leaving us with no sense of control of the outcome of our family home. His suggestions only better his situation more than what he now enjoys while only unfairly penalize us. In addition we would like to point out that in order to understand the full nature of our proposal one must walk around our site to recognize that during the original construction it 3 L` -KHI l E A NO.__ C p- [,t ��! of the outcorne of our family home. His only better his situation more than what he now enjoys while only unfairly penalize us. it In l addition we would i:.a to point out that in order to understand the full nature of our proposal one must wall" around our site to recognize that during the original construction it was cut substantially in deference to uphill neighbors' views and to reduce effective bulk. Also the shape of the lot does not allow the proposed home to be sited in other layouts or locations; we are already designing to the front and sideyard setbacks. If we were to mote the house further downhill the proposed roof would further impact the views of uphill neighbors. harik you very much for your time and attention. Sincerely t� Julie .Huh and Paul Wong of r. Qj W W� NI 4 21 o o, O t! O hl Y� Si N� O NI I t� S N� ciI 4 �i d� N z� K' Ui �i U) u w F— v Q V) Z 00j w Z'n[� V ry V),6 w Z 0 0 n� w E �3 §9 41 o� w� V rI 3i 0 0 0 9_ (7i Z ts� S �s s� �a ax ymG aa� Ys wSS a 3� a 3 v� e� 0 0 c� z z w m 0 U w C) t!) Z Q J O t1) uj N 0 a- 0 06 V) Z LLI Z O U w 0 m T M V O N W W Z� d C r E-+ AM�Yy P-W U LU U Cf) ui LL t C5 z E-1 P-4 r4 � - _ \ \ % m \ $ 0 \ / \ \ ƒ 0 \ \ m \ > \ 0 0 » \ % Lu y @ \ 3, $j \\ Of) % e � 6 7 � d � V) -r E / 7 - / 0 co < LLJ , / ® e \ \ / / 0 # _ 0 / / Q / 0 ± LU E < i CO \ of / / J � / < < ± 4 CO Z E \ \ / \ LLI u @ 2 z u \ = 0 2 u U) E LLJ U / > / LLI g Q5 >- / / < � / ' u , � - _ \ \ % m \ $ 0 \ / \ \ ƒ 0 \ \ m \ > \ 0 0 » \ % Lu y @ \ 3, $j \\ Of) % e � 6 7 � d � i ■ O Q J J Q U) z O 0 W r H O W M Q W W ILLI ry UJ O U O M s 0 W Q W 0 J Q W z m w v - v) e C, 4. GI U. ,a . e � i t o i0 e - -c e -- v _w T_ U Of Q U) W C7 z Q U, z c� W= o� rn tt� rzr_�, l__' H� �d PEI (5 z W < ui CO w U) U) z < 0 R _j LU LLJ 0 W t- u M R U < z U) 9 z 0 Z uj LLJ (Y LU �aJ u U) Z n 0 0 LU U D LU < z 0 LU uj LU F- Lr) LLJ oto: Cf) u L'i u [if (n LLJ 0 z ul zo (D ".5 U) ui M LL 16 z E-1 mil^ ` <# ``�``�` Vv �., �-®i h�i F--/{ F+-d �C u Lu u v �i O z_ O a w O 0 E; 0 O K W W O W 0 O a 0 a y � 0d i °o r z 3 a �Q 0 0 o e cn z o ®fy ww w U z �2 >— z �— 0 � w U N ® u> ! WJ c h�y°yi F-�-i h!E r+ UL c g: w 0 Q O w O K O N E O LL LU W 0 w y O a 0 a W. 3 U W O Q � M W K O < O � K p O Z 0 H O LL O W� > Z 2 W � K U � U) U U W H T U Q Cl) Z W U Z, Oo UN R W 0 z F� -•t-t Y� :J M Y U W O O Q O K w 0 0 a LL w z w K v Y V W a O Q O K W O a 0 0 LL W 0 0 a a i E-- U W H T U 4 Z W v (0 E; p w j +li c ti r--a all, r-- a �y .1 ti O U' Z J O Q O C W w O O O O W 3 w 0 w ti O a 0 a 0 0 C z J Q C W 'V D 6 O O O C w 3 W Z W C 7 U U) U U Li U U Q U) Z x W v z O p u N W J rw h-t r�4 p 7� n� z 0 Q J W H Z O LL LL O W H_ U' Z O w N O LL O C a z O Q w J W H Z O LL LL O w 2 c� z H z U U) LU W Of Of z W U z O U? 9 W_ J W Fo S � C7 � z � r� u m (1) z ry, ui u z 0 u 3 LU LLJ O. z; D U LLJ u < YY (1) z ry, ui u z 0 u 3 LU LLJ O. z; D 0 E LE 0 Itu LIJ U W z Z :D C ❑ 0 Z F— (n X uj (D,-- K 2 00 W D LU ON CCU c Mi hill!!Will 1 Hit 1 !Ay it a 1 1 5 A 1-1 LA a 7 4 1 SWEA THIMIT2 Ti 1— 1 2 �ji Rs 1, V) T sit 1 HI j 1 A 1 0 E LE 0 Itu LIJ U W z Z :D C ❑ 0 Z F— (n X uj (D,-- K 2 00 W D LU ON CCU c z cr- 0 1 LU U z LU 0 F/i LU z Cl) i-- u LLJ U U) Z 0 z Z) 0 U- 0 z F— V) X Z oN U) w LU D M io -j uj Ln z z kn I LU V z LLJ r') FA LU z 0 1.0 71- cr- 0 0 O z 71- 0 V z LLJ n V) LU z (D z Lij U LLJ U cn z 0 !;E 0 z :D 0 LL (D z �5 X Lij (!) m Z0 LLJ 0 z E--q pq W d p O Q O K ii U U a u o <e F 0 S try W3 V U z ?� M > ®per Q Jo r° M O O `y W V. p 0 0 .o W J W J >3 F 2 () Z Z 3 z p W O O n a = 0, a3 N W d p O Q O K w a <e s J � ® Q try W3 V Z p � M O ®per O = LL r° M O W-i ryi u. to -J7-.7- r. 2 O r. fp U R 0 ®R 1�1 rn z E--1 WT 4 510 RIDGE ROAD J 0 JULY 18th, 2013 r- (�° O m Q LLJ W E Aio r U Lo ® Q F Z i O W [ j i O Z W UJ Q U Q z U) Z z () W LIJ LIJ 1 ✓ u U) Le I < O 3: D 0 � Q uj U G W O LL r J Q W 0 z m W E cr- U Lo Vii:? tiX> -)So i e Z P° � 16 Cti 9 C :1;1 D.'i:J u U u Df 4 U) W Z Q 2 U Z C7 ro Wes+ 2 t—t W W Dvvyi P,ot L ',-N0,' 4 2m PL �NN4- -j wed m 7 ora; ol EXIII-ITBT IT NO Date: From: Scott Woods Address: 623 Ridge Rd., Tiburon CA To: Town of Tiburon Planning Department Dear Design Review Board, MAR 12 i0i"; i have met with Paul Wong and Julie Huh to review the Swatt/Miers architectural plans dated Feb 51h 2013. These plans are for the remodel / addition to their home at 510 Ridge Rd., Tiburon, CA. i hereby approve of this design. Sincerely, Scott Woods EIIHIBIT ISO, May 26, 2013 ( J 1 U! MAY 3 0 2013 Office of Design Review PLAI1!tvIR�G DIVISION Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Wong /Huh, 501 Ridge Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 091 -24 Gentlepersons: We write to support approval of the application filed by Paul Wong and Julie Huh to construct a new single - family dwelling with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. This couple has met with us on several occasions to show us the plans for their home at the location above. We believe that they have sustained considerable expense and time delays in attempting to satisfy neighbor's concerns regarding the plans and have done all that they could. Please accept their proposal and welcome them to our community. Cordially, Ly mUUUE.�Spitler, 1\ D i 1 l' Edmond I Eger, M.D. Tiburon Design Review Board Attn: Dan Watrous 1505 Tiburon Blvd 612 Ridge Road Tiburon CA 94920 May 29'h 2013 Dear Dan Watrous, Design Review Meeting: 510 Ridge Road � U JUN 03 2013 J PLANNING DIVISION I would like to comment on the proposals for this property which is to be reviewed by the Design Review shortly. Overall, I support the building plans and am pleased that the new house will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. The particular point that I want to raise is regarding the amount of light visible from the property at night. Over the years, night views have been enhanced by active efforts to eliminate light pollution. In particular many homeowners have agreed to avoid skylights, north facing windows and large amounts of landscape lighting. This has meant that looking down the hill towards the Bay and the City at night there are very few lights visible. The plans for 510 Ridge Road include large north facing windows from the proposed dining room, two skylights and a significant amount of outdoor lighting. My request is that the property owners and their architects are asked to mitigate these light sources — and where feasible remove them. A combination of landscaping or other features to hide the lighting are needed. There are other lighting features that can be downsized or removed. I would ask the Design Review Board to take this into account and agree changes to the plan that achieve this goal. Regards Geoffrey Fletcher EX I IT NO Robert M. McDermott 601 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA, 94920 Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Office of Design Review Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA, 94920 Attention: Members of the Design Review Board Subject: Proposed New House at 510 Ridge Road LATE MAIL# r MAY 3 0 2013 1L) PLANI`_INIG DIVISION May 30, 2013 I am writing to express my concerns regarding the subject proposed house. I have met with the applicants, Paul Wong and Julie Huh, with their architects several times over the past year and they have been most gracious in keeping me abreast of developments in their design and have taken some of my concerns on board. There are, however, several unresolved issues which I address here for your review and, hopefully, favorable resolution. These concerns are: 1. Significant encroachment into my view of Raccoon Strait; 2. Roof design that does not adequately compensate for loss of view of the Strait; 3. Garage door and north side windows which wilt create tight pollution at night. My wife, now deceased, and I bought what we considered to be our dream house at 601 Ridge Road 29 years ago. We were attracted by the peace and quite of Httt Haven with its views of the city, the bay, and especially Raccoon Strait with its own special "jewel', Ayala Cove. Ever since this has been home for us and our our two sons, although they are now grown up and have left the nest. After living abroad for a number of years we returned to our home six years ago when t retired. My wife, unfortunately, passed away from Myeloma four years ago, but I intend to live here, sharing the pleasures of this lovely location with my fiancd, our family and our friends as long as possible. My house is a rather unique as it has a linear configuration with all the rooms laid out in a line, one after another. This layout suits the lot and provides nice views of Raccoon Strait and Ayala Cove from every room. The views from inside the house are most relevant with regard to the proposed house at 510 RR since these are our primary viewing areas. See attached photos_ 510 Ridge Road is located directly across the street and has always prevented us from having a superb view of nearly the whole of Raccoon Strait, but we have lived with that situation since that was the view we accepted when we bought the house. We do have, however, a very special. "slot view" of the Strait and Ayala Cove provided by the gap between 510 RR and 1910 Straits View. This provides a lovely, natural view of trees and water, undisturbed by any buildings. We were always concerned that, one day, 510 RR would be sold, torn down and a much larger house would be built on that site, disturbing or potentially eliminating that very special view. That dreaded day occurred about 18 months ago when Paul and Julie bought 510 RR. Since then I have studied very carefully the plans and drawings provided by Paul, Julie and their architects, even creating a 3D model of the proposed house using SketchUp software so l feel that I know very well what the impact of this design would be on my views, and consequently on the the value of my property. Page 1 of 3 Ex F, i ot= They chose a difficult, triangular, hillside lot on which the existing house is hemmed in by large homes on both sides. The existing house is quite high, higher than most others in the neighborhood, in order to gain views over neighboring houses, to the detriment of our view of the Strait and Cove. According to my neighbor, Trudy Taich, who has lived at 1905 Straits View Drive for over 50 years, the house at 510 RR was built (in 1970) without proper consultation with or consideration for the views of Mr and Mrs Edgar Brand, the previous owner of my house (built in 1957). As a result, the Brands were forced to build a "crow's nest ", a large, 12' x12', deck raised some 10 feet above the ground, to regain some of their lost views. The best solution for the new house at 510 RR, from my point of view, would be for the new house to be recessed into the hillside and each level terraced in order to keep the overall height of the house at a level that would not encroach on my views or those of my neighbors and more in keeping with the adjacent houses. This is the solution recommended by the Town of Tiburon's Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. Paul and Julie, presumably to qualify their project as consisting of "additions to an existing house ", have chosen to retain the existing foundation and a few partitions which does not lend itself to a terraced approach. Now that the Town has declared that their application is a request " to construct a new single - family dwelling ", it would seem appropriate to evaluate their proposed design with closer regard to the Town's Guidelines. While a redesign, following the terraced approach, would be most welcome and would seem to be the most appropriate action given the recently announced decision to consider this application as being for a new dwelling, I shall hereafter make comments on the design as submitted to the Town on May 16, 2013. In order to have ten foot high ceilings and good views of the City, the Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge, as welt as to obtain the maximum allowed floor area, the proposed design encroaches significantly into my "slot" view which is clearly seen in the attached photos. The second (main) level extends 10' to the north into the "slot" and extends to the east by about 15' (including the roof overhang). In addition to the large roof overhangs, there is a "pop -up" roof over the living room and a very tall (3'6"), large (?8'x 26'x 9') L- shaped box on the roof which is designed to hide two large skylights from the view of the neighbors. I seriously question the need for these skylights. One, 20'x 3', is over the living room, which will be very welt tit by floor -to- ceiling windows across the entire 50' width of the house plus a 23' expanse of windows on the south side of the living area. These windows will receive sunlight from sunrise to sunset, probably bringing in more light than is actually welcome and will end up being covered much of the time. A skylight over this area simply does not make sense. The other skylight (9'x 4') is over the stairwell which will be adequately lit from the adjacent hallway windows on both levels as well as by interior electric lights. if those skylights were not present there would be no need for the L- shaped box other than serving as an architectural "signature" which, to me, does not have a place in a residential neighborhood, especially where such a "feature" is to the detriment of the neighbors' views. 1, my family and our friends are primarily the ones who would see this "feature ", and we would much prefer to see the waters of Raccoon Strait. The "pop -up" ceiling and roof over the living area adds another 1 foot to the height of the house due to the decision to make the tiving area one foot higher than the dining area white retaining a Page 2 of 3 E_""UBIT NO J P- 2 oo 10' ceiling height. They actually have designed a 10'6" ceiling in the living area by reducing the thickness of the roof by 6" compared to that over the kitchen and dining area. After our discussions, the overhangs in the kitchen /dining area have been modified somewhat, but there is still scope to further reduce the width of the overhang in the dining area and the thickness of the roof. If the floor in the living area were kept at the same level as that in the dining area, there would be no need for the "pop-up" roof. Alternatively, if the floor level in the living area has to be V above that in the dining area the living area ceiling could be dropped to 9'6". While the "slot view" is very precious to us, and we really should not have to lose any of it, I have proposed that encroachment of the new house into that space would be acceptable if the height profile of the entire house were kept at a low enough level. This could be achieved by reducing the overhangs, lowering the roof line and eliminating the skylights and their protective box. The design as submitted does not meet these objectives. Turning to other aspects of the design, I also have concerns over the amount of light which will be emitted from the windows on the north side, next to the entrance hallway and in the dining area. This is will illuminate the area within the "Slot" which will disturb our night -time view of the Straight_ This side of the proposed house will be more open to view when the existing trees and shrubs are removed and the prosed landscaping plan is implemented. Another concern is the garage door which, in all the drawings and renditions I saw earlier, appeared to be made of solid panels. According to the note on drawing DR8, however, this door will consist of an aluminum frame with glass panels over the entire surface area. Many garage doors have no windows at all and those with windows usuatty have only a single row near the top. t think that a wooden door (or even two doors separated by a narrow post), of style similar to the adjacent wood panel watts, would be much more attractive, be more secure and would not give off any Ught at all. My final point is on the color of the walls and roof. I am not clear as to what color is actually proposed for either, but would not tike pure white or unfinished concrete grey. A beige, sand color would be most appealing for the plaster walls. The roof treatment is said to be pebbles, but the color is not specified. Light brown or beige would again be best, perhaps with several colors used to break up the monotony of the large roof area. I invite all of the members of the Design Review Board to visit our home as soon as practical to see for themselves the situation we are in and to discuss alternative solutions for the design of Paul and Julie's house. I know that several of my neighbors, some of whom were not advised of the application or the meeting on June 6th, have concerns about various aspects of the proposed design so, especially given the very recent decision to classify this application as being for a new dwelling, it would seem totally reasonable to postpone the DRB meeting now planned for June 6th, in order for all of us to study the plans more carefully and submit our comments. SincreI Robert M. McDermott Page 3 of 3 EMEBITNTO 0 hh��q lv 3 M� Fl 0 L b cn a q 3 r— M I �x3 E MICHAEL REX ASSOCIAT GS ARCHITECTURE & DESIG;: 1 7 5 0 B R I D G E W A 1' 5 U I T E 8 2 1 1 S A U S A L I T O C A L I F O R N i A 9 4 9 6 5 T 4 1 5 3 3 1 1 4 0 0 F 4 1 5 3 3 1 5 4 6 3 MICHAELREXASSOCIATES.COM May 30, 2013 Members of the Design Review Board c/o Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Planning Division Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: NEW WONG/HUH RESIDENCE AT 510 RIDGE ROAD, TIBURON Dear Members of the Design Review Board, mil► 4 } MAY 30 2013 1 U P L A 1R1G D V'S 10N On behalf of Bruce Breitman, owner of the property at 600 Ridge Road, uphill of the proposed Wong /Huh Residence at 510 Ridge Road, I am writing to express concern about the design proposed by Swatt/Miers Architects shown on plans having a revision date of 4/09/13 and stamped, "Received" by the Town on May 16, 2013. I have personally visited Mr. Breitman's home to observe the existing story poles and have reviewed the set of submittal plans. This last Tuesday, May 28, Mr. Breitman and I met with Miya Muraki from Swatt/Miers Architects, my first meeting with a representative of the Project; a meeting Mr. Breitman requested. From this investigation, it's conclusive that if the proposed Project is approved as currently submitted, the new home will significantly diminish the use, enjoyment and value of Mr. Brietman's property. Significant Impacts 1, Alight time Glare and Light Pollution from windows and skylights: Large, floor to ceiling windows and excessively long rooftop skylights facing uphill towards Mr. Breitman's home will glow like a beacon at night from interior lighting that will forever distract from and compete with the lights of the San Francisco City skyline and the Golden Gate Bridge. Currently, as the attached photo shows, these important features are framed by darkness, which greatly enhances the quality of the fine central views Mr. Breitman enjoys from all of his primary indoor and outdoor living spaces. 2. Lack of adequate landscape screening: Landscape Plans call for the removal of a large existing fir tree and all the existing understory plant material that currently screens the new build's location. New plant material proposed will be lower and ineffective in screening the new home and the large expanses of glass that are proposed. 3. View Impairment: A central portion of Mr. Breitman's Bay water view and the Tiburon shoreline will be blocked by the second level of the proposed home. Through much of Mr. Breitman's water views will remain, the portion that will be blocked is important to him, because handsome boats often traverse through this portion of the Bay. E B T 11 f 1 ? � I vF-,�; 4. Exterior Lighting: While exterior down lights proposed to be recessed in the roof overhangs have a light source that will be directed downward, we're concerned that light spill onto the home's exterior walls may tend to illuminate the building envelope and thus contribute to night time glare and light pollution. Conflict with Section 4.02.07. Guiding Principles The Project as currently proposed is in conflict with the following Guiding Principles that are to be considered for Site Plan & Architectural Review applications: (b) Site Layout in Relation to Adjoining Sites: The location of proposed improvements on the site, specifically portions of the building mass, windows, skylights and landscaping are in poor relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites. (e) Grading & Tree Removal: The proposed Landscape Plan calls for the removal of existing trees and plant material necessary to screen the new home from neighboring properties. (g) Landscaping: Proposed landscaping will not mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed development. (h) Lighting: Proposed lighting on the interior visible at night through large expanses of glass facing neighboring properties produce glare and light pollution. Exterior down lighting may illuminate and reflect off of exterior walls and surfaces. Conflict with Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings The Project as currently proposed is in conflict with the following Goals and Principles of Tibu ron's Hillside Guidelines: Goal 2: The designer of the newest house on the block to avoid conflicts with neighbors. The current design creates the conflicts summarized above. Principle 1: Do not use colors, textures, materials and forms which will attract attention by not relating to other elements in the neighborhood. Illumination of the large expanses of windows and skylights at night will attract significant negative attention when contrasted against the predominantly dark foreground of Mr. Breitman's primary views. Principle 2: Do not use large expanses of a single material on walls, roofs and paving areas. No to `large glass areas." This Principle has been ignored. Principle 6A. Avoid large expanses of floor to ceiling glass. This Principle has been ignored. Lack of Neighborhood Outreach Though Mr. Breitman personally requested and was assured by Mr. Wong and his Architect over a year ago that he'd be kept informed of the proposed improvements at 510 Ridge Road, he was never contacted by either party. Neither the Project's owner, nor its Architect ever visited Mr. Breitman's home until just last Tuesday to understand his needs or assess the impact of the proposed design. Therefore, one must conclude that the current design was prepared somewhat out of context with the neighborhood, thus leading to the conflicts summarized above. While the Applicant may have reached out to some neighbors during the Project's planning stage, they overlooked others, like Mr. Breitman, who their design significantly and negatively impacts. z' -vim r7? �' � �. 2 ��s >_:'iL � T .__� Continuance of Hearing and Need for Revisions For the good reasons summarized above; because the current design proposed for a new house at 510 Ridge Road is in conflict with the Guiding Principles and Hillside Guidelines; because the house as submitted will have a serious and negative impact on the neighboring property at 600 Ridge Road, we ask that the Design Review Board continue the hearing that is Currently scheduled for June 6, and direct the application to revise the home's design and landscaping to address the concerns raised in this letter in order to mitigate the negative impacts it will cause on others. Conclusion Mr. Breitman asks that prior to the June 6 hearing, each member of Tiburon's Design Review Board visit his home at 600 Ridge Road, so you can see for yourself the reasons for the concerns expressed in this letter. Thank you for giving our concerns your full consideration. Sincerely, f Michael Rex, Architect Copy: Bruce Breitman P, a OF J !� "�- ] � . �� ��� :t1y R`—� �= �� h�a �� �4 600 Ridge Road Phone 415/435 -4506 Tiburon, CA 94920 Facsimile 415/435 -7483 Via Email: dwatrous @ci.tiburon.ca.us ' May 30, 2013 uu riAY 30 20 13 Office of Design Review Pi ANN11�Ir ,;wS;OP,I Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA, 94920 Re: Project at 510 Ridge Road — Design Issues Dear Design Review Board Members: I have lived at 600 Ridge Road for over 24 years and during this time I have had unobstructed spectacular views during the day and at night of the San Francisco Skyline, San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. The Design Review Board ( "DRB ") has done a remarkable job in restricting extraneous light from shining in the view from my house and from neighbor's houses throughout our neighborhood and elsewhere. In the Tiburon website it says Tiburon by the Bay - Near Perfect. The reason it is Near Perfect is because of the great job done by the DRB in maintaining the views treasured by each resident. Living in Tiburon is very special because of the exceptional world class views which every home owner enjoys. When I look out at the nighttime view, thanks to the good work of the DRB, I do not see lights from other houses in the view of the San Francisco Skyline and San Francisco Bay as well as the Golden Gate Bridge. The project at 510 Ridge Road, as presented, if allowed to pass would significantly change the nighttime views by allowing large windows facing uphill which include, among others, windows from the dining room, windows in a hallway leading to the master bedroom, a glass front door and a glass garage door. Given Swatt Miers experience in Tiburon they must be well aware of these issues and know that light pollution is unacceptable. Over one year ago I met Paul Wong and his architect out on the street in front of my house when they were meeting with Bob McDermott, my neighbor at 601 Ridge Road. Bob introduced me to them. I asked them to contact me to discuss the project as it moves forward. They assured me they would do so. I never heard from them and as of the date of this letter Paul Wong has never returned my phone calls seeking a meeting with him. It is my understanding that developers of projects and their architects reach out to Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager May 30, 2013 Page 2 of 4 neighbors that may be affected by the project in an effort to learn if there are any concerns or issues. I am surprised that this did not happen in my case. On May 20, 2013, 1 received a Courtesy Notice of a public meeting scheduled for June 6, 2013. Attached to the Courtesy Notice was a Notice of Public Hearing for "...construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling." This Notice stated that variances will be sought for this project. On May 24, 2013, 1 received a Corrected Notice of Public Hearing which revised the earlier Notice to now change the project to construction of a new single- family dwelling. There was no change in the date of the hearing in the Corrected Notice. There is insufficient time to analyze the revised Notice which now involves construction of a new single - family dwelling. I wonder if this timing confirms to what is legally required? For this reason and other reasons set forth below I requested Miya Muraki, the associate at the firm of Swatt Miers to ask the owner Paul Wong and Julie Huh to reschedule the hearing so I could have adequate time to address negative impacts to my property that have been identified. Miya Muraki the Associate at the firm of Swatt Miers first met with me and my Architect Consultant Michael Rex at my house on Tuesday May 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM to discuss the project. Miya told me that she could see that the windows would generate excessive light and seriously interfere with the nighttime view. She said she would ask Paul Wong and Julie Huh to consider a continuance and she promised to get back to us by 11:00 am the next day, May 29, 2013. That never happened. Michael Rex phoned Bob Swatt Wednesday, May 29, 2013, early afternoon to request a continuance of the DRB meeting so we would have reasonable time to access the project and work with the project architects to mitigate the various issues. As mentioned above Miya agreed there were serious view issues from light pollution impacting the nighttime view. Bob Swatt sent an email to Michael Rex around I pin Wednesday stating, "Thanks for the call. I've sent an email to our clients regarding your request, and Miya is meeting with them this afternoon to discuss this and other issues. I'll let you know when we know something..." As of today there has been no response. During the meeting at my house Miya also said that the landscape plan needs to be revised. This is another important reason to postpone the DRB meeting to a future date. There is one large Fir tree which shields a large portion of the existing house from my view and I urge that this tree remain in place. The current plan is for that tree and all other greenery to be removed and replaced with lower growing less dense foliage. During our meeting Miya told us the story poles as they existed may not be correct and there would be someone coming to the property on Wednesday, May 29, 2013, to correct the story poles. Miya said those story poles have been in place over one year. Miya said that Paul Wong went to a neighborhood holiday party to show the neighbors what he intended to do and that this party was at a time before the story poles had initially E WHIT NO. % 5 Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager May 30, 2013 Page 3 of 4 been erected. She seemed to think that this so- called presentation at a neighborhood party would suffice as his efforts to reach out to neighbors regarding his project. I was at that party and never observed or heard any presentation. This so- called presentation occurred over 18 months ago according to what Miya told us. 1 am surprised at the lack of effort by Paul Wong and Julie Huh and their architects to reach out to me to discuss the issues in this matter. Their failure to do so should be reason enough to postpone the DRB meeting to allow me and my Architect Consultant to meet with the project architects so Swatt Miers can come up with a solution to the problems and issues which are now in the existing proposed plan. In addition to the lights emanating from the glass windows and garage and front door there is also an issue with regard to the outdoor lighting plan. As we all know there are very few outdoor lights in Tiburon and the proposed plan is unacceptable as it will generate unacceptable light pollution in my nighttime view. The house as proposed blocks an important portion of the view of Raccoon Straits from my house. A number of times each week the Hornblower Yacht which is lit up with incredible lights sails along Raccoon Straits and each time I look forward to seeing it each day that it sails. It appears to be close to the shore and the proposed house will significantly lessen and block my viewing of this spectacular ship. To summarize, the issues for me which exist in the project at 510 Ridge Road include, among others: 1. There is an excessive amount of large windows facing uphill toward my home and others resulting in nighttime glare and light pollution including, a. The windows in the dining room; b. The windows in the hallway leading to the bedroom; c. An additional window in a hallway; d. The glass front door; e. The glass garage door; f. Large windows in the stairwell and foyer. 2. The outdoor lights; 3. The necessary modifications to the landscape plan; 4. The importance of retaining the large tree that shields much of the existing house; 5. The blockage of my important view Raccoon Straits. Because of these significant and important issues I respectfully request that the DRB meeting be continued to a future date to allow necessary revisions to the proposed plan. Should the hearing occur on June 6, 2013, I request you direct the applicant to revise the drawings to address my concerns. Please consider this to be a formal request that each member visit my house in advance of the June 6 meeting. I am available on Saturday, Sunday or most any other day. The DRB member should phone me at 415- 435 -4506 to set up a time to visit. E a-11TITBI ' NO, [ J Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager May 30, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Finally, 1 wish to advise that I have engaged the services of attorney Riley Hurd to represent me in the event it becomes necessary to enforce my legal rights as a long term resident of the Town of Tiburon. Thank you very much. Best regards, /s/ &'w S"a¢ttsseasL Bruce Breitman cc: Riley Hurd, Esq. via email RHurd @rflawllp.com Michael Rex, Architect Consultant via email rex @rexassoc.com Paul Wong and Julie Huh via email mingwong888 @gtnail.com Miya Muraki, Architect via email mmuraki @swattmiers.com Robert Swart, Architect via email rswatt @swattmiers.com 6.1.2013 510 RIDGE ROAD - nRB HEARING SKYLIGHT REVISION REQUESTED Page 1 of 2 Dan Watrous From: Miles Berger Architect, AIA [miles @mb- aia.comj Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:38 AM To: Dan Watrous; Scott Anderson JUN 03 2013 i Cc: Miya Muraki; Jay Venkatesan; Donna Louizides I PL AANNINIG D(VISIQI� Subject: 6.1.2013 510 RIDGE ROAD - DRB HEARING SKYLIGHT REVISION REQUESTED Attachments: 6.1.2013 SKY LIGHT REVISION CONCEPT .pdf; Venkatessan View of SF .jpg Dear Dan and Members of the Design Review Board, The new residence at 510 Ridge Road looks as though it will be an excellent addition to ridge Road and Tiburon. My clients lay and Donna Venkatessan at 616 Ridge Road have only one reservation that while serious for them and the enjoyment of their home, can be easily mitigated by some minor changes to the design. The skylights proposed appear to be visible from the residences up hill. The house across the street has a rather low angle of view but those further up Ridge, such as 616 at the Venkatessans deck have a much steeper angle of view as illustrated in the attached photograph. The skylights would appear to be very prominent and directly in line with Angel Island and San Francisco Nighttime views. The measures suggested to screen the skylights do not appear to be sufficient to cut off views of the skylight shaft and inner shaft surfaces. In the evening, when lights in the house are on (even if the lights are not in the shaft or even if the skylight is tinted) the skylight makes a very bright point of light in the dark night sky view in front of very dim SF lights beyond. This will glare out the views. If the skylights are sharply tipped as I suggest in the PDF sketch in red, which I have attached, or have a very tall buffering screen that will shield a 45 degree view down to the roof, this problem can be avoided. I have sent this sketch to the very good architectural firm who is doing the project and I have no doubt they can integrate controls such as these, and make the skylights shielded from high views above. The shielding can not be a close angle such as is shown in the drawinas, as manv houses well above this proiect have much sharper angled views down on the new roof than the angle suggested. I have also included a photo of the Wong roof from the Venkatessan residence showing the roof where the new skylights will be, the steep angle of the view lines and the SF City views directly across the view. If these changes are made or other measures used is we have no other objection to the project, in fact wholeheartedly support the design. Please ask to have the architects modify the skylight design and show the E L TBTTT. 6/10011 P, 1 0F2- 6.1.2013 510 RIDGE ROAD - nRB HEARING SKYLIGHT REVISION REQUESTED Page 2 of 2 methods that they propose. We would have no objection if the project receive conditional approval and final changes re: the skylights are submitted to us and the DRB staff for a staff review. Sincerely, a MILES BERGER.AIA 14 RACCOON LANE TIBURON, CA, 94920 4 5 5 9 3 5 4 6 6 's NMLES @ aMB- AIA.COM WEBSITE MB- AIA,G0M E- IM NO. f P. 2- or- 2-- Aiv1)rn LATE MAIL #_8 Trudy Taich <trudytaich @ sbcglobal. net> New 501 House Project June 4, 2013 11:55 AM June 4, 2013 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board New Construction 510 Ridge Road Dear Mr. Watrous: If!i JUN 04 2013' PLF,IVw ?:G i'!VfSiOf. This letter is in regard to the construction of a new house at 510 Ridge Road. We are pleased with the design of the new house, and find the Wong family to be very friendly and respectful to the neighbors. The only problem we have is the size and height of the house, and the disadvantage it has to neighbors across the street. We have been residents here at 1905 Straits View Dr. for 57 years. When the first house was built on that lot, the neighbors had no control of hight or obstruction of view, as it was still under County control. The house at 601 Ridge lost about 3/4 of the view of the Straits and Angel Island. It was very damaging and distressing to the neighbors at that time, and still is. Now we are presented with the building of another new house in the same spot, and removing the same view area. We are now blessed with having our own city planning committee that can oversee our concerns regarding past mistakes, and ask for you to use your good judgement and protect 601, The McDermott family and the Hill Haven neighborhood and our land values. Sincerely, Dr. Lewis J. Taich and family 5,HIBTT PTO. June 4 2013 JUN 05 2013 Mr. Dan Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Proposed Wong /Huh Residence, 510 Ridge Road Dear Mr. Watrous, I am writing on behalf of Mr. Bruce Breitman, 600 Ridge Road. Mr. Breitman is extremely and correctly concerned about several aspects of the proposed new house. Two specific aspects that he requested my comments on are: • A proposed skylight approximately nineteen feet long by four feet wide, on the south end of the house; • The large expanse of floor to ceiling glass windows on the northeast corner of the upper floor of the house. Both the skylight and the windows will emit a great amount of light where there was previously none in Mr. Breitman's view shed. The visual impact of the light emissions is particularly significant as it will compete with, and detract from the view of the city lights in the distance. The glass window expanse at the southeast corner of the house extends into Mr. Breitman's existing view of the water. The floor to ceiling glass expanse is prominent, as shown by the architect's own photomontage. Even a 50 percent reduction in the glass area would allow extensive light spillage. Mr. Brietman currently enjoys a night time view entirely unobstructed by lights between his house and San Francisco. Screening, or "covering up" the proposed architectural problems with plant material is much less desirable than thoughtful consideration in the planning stages. It also cannot be guaranteed to succeed over the long term. Landscape solutions have many variables that architectural solutions do not have, and often do not have the longevity of architecture. EKHT MIT NO, 4 5 2 After looking at the proposed house from both 600 Ridge Road, and 601 Ridge Road, we have concluded that it would not be possible to screen the skylight and associated parapet without impacting the view from Mr. McDermott's house at 601 Ridge. The proposed parapet on the uphill side of the skylight does, itself, impact the McDermott's view; and the "assumed view angle" as shown on Section 1 /DR 12 of the submitted plans seems very shallow. Additional tree planting would cause further loss of the water view. The existing Deodar Cedar (labeled "Fir Tree" on the plans) is at the maximum height acceptable for the McDermott's. Possibly, to address Mr. Breitman's concerns, a recent revision on the topographical Survey shows the proposed addition of three Strawberry trees (Arbutus unedo) , or Laurels ( Laures 'Saratoga') at the north end of the property. These trees are not located on the plan accurately. As proposed , they will have no screening effect. Also, both of these species are extremely slow growing, and will likely not be available in the size required to be effective. A prior proposal added three pine trees in the some location. In general, pines are not a desirable screening tree for the following reasons: • Ultimately, they will require constant pruning to maintain the desired height without blocking views, and; • Pine trees are prone to pine pitch canker, and to turpentine beetle infestation, both of which cause death to pine trees. Pines are particularly susceptible where stressed, and where wounds from pruning occur. In addition to architectural solutions for the light spillage and view blockage, we would recommend that at least three large specimen non - deciduous trees be planted along the Ridge Road frontage, to the east of the existing Deodar Cedar. These specimens should be twenty -five feet tall at the time of planting to be even partially effective. The closer to Ridge Road and the higher up the slope they are planted, the more effective they will be. It would also be prudent to plant a tall hedge of Podocarpus or similar plants along the road frontage, and allow them to achieve a substantial height. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting on Thursday evening; however, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Warren Simmonds Simmonds & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architect Lisc. #2452 Cc: Bruce Breitman, Riley Hurd, Michael Rex E-K&HIM NO. Ragghianti` i�'SIlLP RILEY F. HURD III RHURD @RFLAWLLP.COM June 5, 2013 Via E -Mail Only (dzoatrous@ tozzlnoftiburon. org) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 510 Ridge Road, File #21304 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 874 FOURTH STREET, SUITE D SAN RAFAEL, GA 94901 -3246 TELEPHONE 415.453.9433 FACSIMILE 415.453.8269 W W W.RFLA W LLP.COM i (' JUN 05 2013 PL ANNA IPdG DMSION Our office represents Mr. Bruce Breitman in connection with the above - referenced application. Mr. Breitman is the owner of the home at 600 Ridge Road, which is uphill from the proposed project, and which has primary views directly over the subject property. The purpose of dds letter is to request that the DRS require amendments to the currently proposed plans such that light pollution is minimized or eliminated, view obstructions are minimized, and the design is made to conform to the Towri s Hillside Design Review Guidelines. Relevant Project Data The applicants seek to build a new home utilizing 98% of the allowable FAR for the lot, along with variances for setbacks and lot coverage. Components of the home's modern design relevant to this correspondence include the following: 1. Two very large skylights 2. A large glass wall forming the northeast corner of the dining room 3. A long glass- enclosed hallway facing uphill 4. A materials board showing light gray stucco walls and a parry pebble roof 5. A constantly changing, but inadequate, landscaping plan EXIHIBIT N039- W L& RagghlantI I1 i'r.'iU S LLP Tiburon DRB June 5, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Project Setting The property at 510 Ridge Road is surrounded by mature foliage and is framed by the San Francisco Bay when viewed from uphill. Mr. Breitman's home at 600 Ridge Road enjoys views of San Francisco, Angel Island, Raccoon Straits, and the Golden Gate Bridge. The proposed new residence will be sited directly in the lower middle of this viewshed and, as demonstrated by the story poles in the photo attached as Exhibit A, will further block views of Raccoon Straits. A distinguishing feature of Mr. Breitman's home, and the neighborhood in general, is a completely dark night sky, which allows for amazing nighttime views of San Francisco and the Bay. This lack of light pollution is not an accident. Designs for new and updated homes in the area have been carefully scrutinized to protect this unique neighborhood characteristic. A photo of the nighttime view is attached as Exhibit B. 601 Ridge Road is across the street from Mr. Breitman's home and looks directly over the project site. The interplay and competing interests of the three properties will need to be balanced by the DRB. Light Pollution Tiburon s Design Review findings specifically address light pollution and afford protections to surrounding properties. Section 16- 52.020(H)(8) states that the DRB should consider the following: "Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes." It appears components of the proposed project would unreasonably produce glare or light pollution. Specifically, the glass wall forming the northeast corner of the dining room, the two large skylights, and the long glass- enclosed hallway facing uphill (in addition to the numerous uphill windows and foyer lighting). While there may be screening options for addressing some of the light produced by these elements, architectural solutions should be implemented first, with screening used as a secondary measure. The applicants' architects first offered a de minimis reduction in the length of the glass wall in the dining room. This reduction would have produced very little net reduction in light pollution, and the northeast corner of the new structure, which is the most EXHIBIT No. I q �e Ragghianti Tiburon DRB June 5, 2013 Page 3 of 5 visible part of the house from Mr. Breitman's living room, would remain as glass. One day before the hearing (i.e. today), the architects are now proposing some type of a louver system. Given the proximity of the hearing date, there is not time to meaningfully analyze this proposal and its effectiveness. It appears there needs to be a significant reduction in glazing, and /or a relocation of this part of the floor plan in order for there to be a meaningful effect. The large skylights appear to be a standard design element for the project architects. The DRB recently considered a project at 116 Lyford designed by the same firm. After serious concerns were expressed about the size and location of the skylights in that project, the DRB required the applicants to significantly reduce the skylights' size, to apply a tint, and to erect a permanent screen. These conditions tracked Section 16- 30.070 of the Town Code, which includes the following requirements: "C. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and shall not utilize frosted glass, and no lights shall be placed in or directed up into the wells. D. Baffles, shields or other structural elements may be required to limit light pollution from exterior lights and skylights." Here similar solutions exist for mitigating the proposed skylights, and some are already proposed in the plans (such as the rooftop parapet walls). However, the staff report for this project suggests a reduction in parapet height, or even complete elimination, in order to benefit the view from 601 Ridge Road. (Staff Report, Page 4.) Unfortunately, this would come at the expense of the dark night sky enjoyed by so many in the neighborhood, and would create a beacon of light in the foreground of Mr. Breitman's otherwise dark nighttime view. Again, a day before the hearing, the architects are now proposing to reduce the skylights sizes, which is a step in the right direction, but these openings will still need to be screened, and time is required to review what is essentially a new plan. A balance should be struck between parapet sizing, views, and light. In regards to the hallway framed entirely by glass, this is an unnecessary design element that should not be granted at the expense of the uphill neighbors' nighttime views. Adequate lighting solutions exist for a hallway with an opaque wall. M14..ndd. s Rtl Raggl,ia7�ti rI i T i11 LLP Tiburon DRB June 5, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Views and Colors The view from Mr. Breitmari s living room over the project site is protected via Goal 3, Principle 7(A), of the Hillside Design Guidelines. Goal 3, Principle 7(C) also notes that blockages of the center of views are more damaging than side blockages. The proposed home sits in the center of Mr. Breitmari s view corridor and also will block more of Raccoon Straits, which is a protected landmark under Principle 7(D). Perhaps a home with less FAR would help to mitigate this issue. In any event, a design that takes into account the sensitive location of the home should be utilized. The intrusion into the view corridor is exacerbated by the colors and materials selected for the project. Specifically, the light gray stucco and pamy stone roof fail to appropriately blend into the vegetated hillside or the backdrop of Angel Island and the Bay waters when viewed from above. The applicants should be directed to select warmer and darker tones for the stucco and roof, such that they better blend into the natural surroundings. (This was also required of this architectural firm at the DRB hearing on their recent Lyford Drive project.) Landscaping Significant opportunities exist for mitigating the effects of this project through careful and effective landscaping. A combination of appropriate tree and hedge species at or near the Ridge Road frontage could serve to greatly screen not only the structure, but any remaining light sources as well. Species selection, placement, and maintenance considerations are important factors given the view concerns from 601 Ridge Road. As of today, the architect's have now proposed a completely different landscape plan, which contains the following major flaws: 1. The applicants now propose to remove a crucial "fir" screening tree from in front of the home. This tree must be retained, as all other plantings will be immature and take years to grow. 2. The new proposed screening trees are shown in the far North corner of the property, which will not accomplish their intended purpose. They need to be moved southwest along ridge road. Elite BIT NO. Ragghlantl Tiburon DRB June 5, 2013 Page 5 of 5 3. The proposed screening trees are inappropriate specimens for the location. Strawberry trees are incredibly slow growing and a nursery size will be about 10 feet, which will do nothing. Grecian Bay Laurels are too small, need too much water, and host sudden oak death. Please refer to the forthcoming letter from architect Warren Simmonds for additional information. Any trees should be evergreen, as opaque as possible, and should quickly reach an elevation of at least 104.1' pursuant to the submitted plans. Conclusion This application is not ready for DRB review. The story poles, plans, and even the noticing, have been a moving target for those interested in analyzing the project, with plans being significantly changed as late as today. The DRB should direct the applicants to come back with a redesign that responds to, and addresses, the concerns set forth herein. Specific attention should be paid to architectural solutions, with landscaping used to address impacts that may remain. Thank you for your attention to these important matters. CC: Bruce Breitman Michael Rex Warren Simmonds Very Truly Yours, Riley F. Hurd III E-KETIM No, Page I of 1 Dan Watrous From: Michael Heckmann [heckmannarchitects @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:48 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: 'BBG, Ltd.' Subject: 510 Ridge Rd. Dan, The applicants have installed several story poles about 16' tall to indicate some landscaping they propose near the street. The purpose was to screen the windows affecting the home at 600 Ridge. However, since they clearly fail to solve the problem (I sent a letter to Swatt informing him of this), Bruce Breitman would like you to extend an invitation to all DRB members to visit his home prior to the next meeting. I would guess this could occur any day from Sat /July 13th until the day of the meeting. Bruce wants me to meet them there and I can be reached by cellphone at 307 -2446 or by email. It seems late afternoons give the best light (and less fog) to see the project. I could tentatively plan for the afternoon of July 10th and 11th. However, if they need another time, even if the weekend prior, I could be available. You might also arrange a visit to the Breitman house soon and assess the situation yourself. If you judge the landscaping to be ineffective, it would give the applicant time to modify their proposal prior to new submittals being filed in the planning dept. Regards, Michael D. Heckmann Architect - Planner 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415 -435 -2446 Fax: 415 -435 -2875 heckmannarchitects65 earthlink net www.heckmannarchitects.com E HIMT NO, 7/10/2013 Robert McDermott 601 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA, 9492C -- !U!_ 0 G 2O J3�b July 9, 2013 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA, 94920 Attention: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager and Members of the DRB Subject: Application for New Single Family Dwelling at 510 Ridge Road Dear Dan and members of the Design Review Board As a follow -up to the DRB Meeting on June 6, 1 would like to add some comments and make some additional observations for your consideration prior to the next meeting on July 18. 1. Views of 510 Ridge Road from 601 Ridge Road I would like to elaborate on the importance of the views I have enjoyed for 29 years, especially the "slot" view through the gap between 510 Ridge Road and 1910 Straits View Drive. I have copied into this letter the images which I attached to my letter to the DRB dated May 30th and have added a few others. In order to insert large images and text on the same page I have had to adopt a rather disjointed format. Please bear with this. Pane l of 16 This is the principal view we have from our home, looking out on Racoon Strait and over the water to Ayala Cove and Angel Island. The existing house at 510 Ridge Road obstructs a large portion of what could be an fabulous view, but, according to long time residents of the neighborhood, when it was built in 1970, there was not the same degree of consultation and design review that Tiburon has today. It would seem that if this design were submitted for approval today, it would not meet the criteria established by the Town according to their "Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings ". Nevertheless, there is a "slot" view of the Strait and Ayala Cove which is enjoyed from every room in our house. This view is a major feature of my property and the encroachment of the proposed new design would detract considerably from the value of my property. I have concentrated my comments on the impact of the second floor, but even the first floor, which extends across the full width of the lot, would obstruct a lovely view of bushes, trees and water which are much preferred to any new structure. EY,HIBTIT NCB. 2 � _. Zooming into the "Slot" one can see the impact the proposed new structure would have on my view during the day and at night. Note that the tree just to the left of the chimney only occupies a portion of the space which would be taken by the new house. This tree has been allowed to grow into the view and should have been trimmed back some time ago. Even with the tree there, one can see the water and boats through the branches. Of course there are no !eaves at all on the tree for 4 or 5 months of the year! Page 3 of 16 3. View from Entrance Hall/Dining Room When one enters my home the immediate view is of the "slot' between 510 Ridge Road 4. View from Dining Room As one moves to the water -side of my house, the impact of the present house at 510 Ridge is clearly seen. The intrusion of the proposed left side into the "slot' is clear as is the impact of the proposed parapet over the right side. Since my main floor is about 50 feet higher than that of 510 Ridge the impact of the proposed ceiling heights and roof overhangs on the water side are also in play but cannot be seen in these photos. E17xHIBIT NCB. 2. (_ )uilt on grade, which is about 2 feet lower than the rest of the house. n and at this angle the impact of the proposed house on the "slot' ,t. About 40% of the view between the two houses would be lost. proposed parapet is also clear as it would be at about the same i W ita'HIB1.f NO._ -Zl Page 5 of 16 6. View from Kitchen /Breakfast Room The view from the kitchen /breakfast area is similar to that from the dining area. It is in these two rooms that we spend the majority of our time and, being retired, we are at home most of the time. .Z,HIBIT NO, 2 7. View from TV Room /Bedroom 3 From the two smaller bedrooms (one is now used for TV) the view is restricted by other parts of the house, and the "slot" view is the most essential part of the view. To the left one can see the spiral staircase leading to the "Upper Deck" which the previous owners built to regain the views lost when 510 Ridge Road was built in 1970. E C3..LTS..i..BTT NO, 21 Page 7 of 16 B. View from Master Bed Room From the master bed room we get our first views of Racoon Strait and Angel Island each day, blocked considerably by the house at 510 Ridge Road. Here the impact of the proposed parapet is shown very clearly as is the cedar tree on the left which has been allowed to grow up into the view of Racoon Strait, and is planned for removal. E]K' HTBTT NO, II. Views along Ridge Road from 510 to 440 As mentioned in my letter of May 30th and stated at the DRB meeting on June 6th, the existing house at 510 Ridge was built without sufficient consultation and review and is out of character with the others along the water side of Ridge Road, especially those which have been constructed in the past few years. These new houses were built after demolition of the existing structure and the new houses were built into the hillside in conformance with the Town's Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. The images that follow clearly show that the most recently approved designs for houses along the water side of Ridge Road are much lower than either the present house at 510 Ridge or the proposed Wong -Huh design. 1. 510 Ridge Road: Built in 1970. Story poles show outline of proposed house. Page 9 of 16 E- HIBI T NO. 2-1 2. 500 e Road: Built in 1973 10 EXHIBIT 1\10. Page 17 of 16 IIIBIT NO. 2 4. 480 Ridge Road: Built in 1955 EXITHIBIT t 12 E1Ti IBIT N0C Page 13 of 16 q-v 14 ".z IHIBIT 7. 440 Ridge Road: Construction began in May 2013 8. 1925 Straits View Drive: Built in 2009 Page 15 of 16 E117HIBI T N Z t 111. Other comments on the application: 1. Just for the record I would like to set out my view of the chronology of the interaction I have had with applicants for new house at 510 Ridge Road: At the DRB meeting on June 6, 1 erroneously stated that Paul Wong and Julie Huh had purchased 510 Ridge Road in the autumn of 2011. 1 was incorrect, as Julie pointed out later: They purchased this property in October 2010. 1 apologize for my error and can only think that I was thrown off by Bob Swatt's statement that he had been working on this project for 2 1/2 years. That surprised me since I know for certain that I was not shown any design by Swatt/Meier before April 2012, just over one year ago. Prior to that it was Howard Blecher who was introduced as the Wong /Huh architect and Howard showed me his first design in April 2011. Later on, in April 2012, he presented the first Swatt/Meier design,a three story house. These early designs were clearly unacceptable in terms of height and mass. It was not until August 2012 that the Swatt/Meier two story design appeared and with it the parapet which at that time was described as being a clerestory, designed to bring light into the living room area and the stairwell. The design with the parapet shielding two large skylights, did not appear until the version that was presented to the Town of Tiburon on May 16, 2013. 2. Another item of concern is the amount of glazing on the north - facing walls of the proposed house and the proposed glass panels in the garage door. Due to the acute viewing angles from my home, the impact of the large glass walls on the north side of the dining area may not have a huge detrimental impact on my views but I know that there will be considerable impact on the views of my uphill neighbors. The proposed glass panels on the garage door, however, will certainly emit light into my view at night. If, as was mentioned at the DRB meeting on June 6th, these panels are "opaque" (i.e. emitting no light at all) it actually makes no sense to have them made of glass. I spoke to a person at Northgate Garage Doors a while ago and he agreed with me that one would not choose glass if one does not want any light to pass through the panels. There are many alternative solutions which would be truly opaque and could be very attractive to the external viewers. 3. As I write this I realize that a modified design has been submitted, but my points are general enough to the proposed new house that I want them considered as soon as possible. I will review the latest plans as soon as possible and revise the photos and comments if I believe there is a material change from the above. :ertMt�M truly urs, Z c ermott Iri SJILHIBi i NO. ` L 10, In . x�f Polt , : , K�, di PC q ;!!, Wil Huhic Rd , fluml 0^19pi � �Vh-��, : ��� � , , ] �, � n, 16 PPWIP, - M W WWI my ,cw"q CA 01'. W� �wnqj 0,11 WSHWOWN100 100P 1"MY&OHI 1 R 1 c'il t'iw( iC,O Ow h1 t, o I h,li I w IV.,i trip p", !"d 111(i p frl h); in ,iddmol) 111 11 Cofll. t I "i', alv MnOy PI M ih 14H P,W PH"2 PRO h Ji, i 1 ra pow ?I q- HI Nin Him a c Alo"Un oW Qpq " in 1": la -, '"MOTO Wi,winy"i wun takinTOw !)d h x i ;hk ilit iw,111!1,11 110, Mkon low win" Oh. f 1 K.A U7711 111TI IT NT O, LATE MAIL #_ t July 11, 2013 Swatt -Miers 5845 Doyle St. #104 Emeryville, CA 94608 Attn: Bob Swatt RE: 610 Ridge Rd. Li JUL 12 ? j After my review of your revised plans dated 7/8113, it is clear that many of the changes you have made to the project show progress on the problem areas of the previous design. It also helps to have a landscape scheme with clearer concepts and graphics. However, there are still some remaining issues that need attention in order for my client to be able to support this project. These issues are as follows: The new home design has documented that much of the existing foundations and wall framing are to be integrated into the new structure, thereby claiming the existing floor levels as benchmarks for the new house. It is extremely unlikely that a new home of this quality will recycle 50- year -old building components and, certainly, the old foundations cannot be used for new shear walls or moment frames. Since this is essentially an all - new house, the entire structure can be lowered 2 -3 feet, still maintain the critical view elements for your clients, and thereby eliminate most of the objections of the neighbors at 600 and 601 Ridge Rd. 2. The proposed wood screen for the lower level bedroom hall exterior glazed wall might be a viable solution to the light spill from these windows. However, we will need an actual detail showing all component sizes and finishes and an installation system that is permanent so that the screen is not easily removed. 3. The main entry north windows and glass door will still be visible from the residence at 600 Ridge Rd. A size reduction, clearstory -type windows, or the wood screen system used elsewhere needs to be incorporated in this area. 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel 415.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects @earthlink.net V www.heckmannarchitects.com �t�.. IBIT mR �O °--- °"°'°°"' P, i C>t- 2— 4. The reduction in the size of the north dining windows is a good improvement. However, since the remaining window will still be quite visible from 600 Ridge Rd. at night, an exterior wall or screen needs to be incorporated. This would extend out perpendicular to the window from its western jamb for a length of about 3 feet and would shield the window completely. 5. We would request actual samples of the garage door panels and frame to confirm that they are matte finish and are non - reflective, as even an opaque glass can be very reflective in sunlight. The landscape plan shows 3 new California bay laurel trees at the uphill property corner. If these grow to a height of 40 feet, they will cause view blockage from 600 Ridge Rd. They need to be eliminated and a lower- growing substitution made. There is also an existing redwood tree shown on the plan that is about 40 feet from the street near the new fire pit. Redwoods are well -known to be fast - growing and causing view blockage. This tree needs to be removed or a lower- growing substitution made. Also, note that the changes to the north dining windows are not properly reflected in the lighting plan /Sheet DR15 and that drawing, therefore, needs to be revised. It would certainly appear that addressing these remaining elements is possible prior to next week's DRB meeting. If this can be achieved, we could then come to the hearing in support of the amended project, and not be left to try and resolve these issues during a hearing and /or appeal process. I will make myself available to meet with you and discuss these issues at your convenience so that we may hopefully resolve this matter. Regards, Michael Heckmann Cc: Dan Watrous/Tiburon Planning Dept. E iHIM NO, Z-3 Y_ Z. 0 F2 LATIE MAIL #4 - IO2L13 Bruce Breitman P! ANIS;lVG D.'`!i`S10N 600 Ridge Road Phone 415/435 -4506 Tiburon, CA 94920 Facsimile 415/435 -7483 Via Email: dwatrous@ci.tiburon,ca.us July 15, 2013 Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA, 94920 Re: 510 Ridge Road Dear Design Review Board Members: This letter is in regard to the revised plans for the above captioned project dated July 8; 2013.1 was pleased to see the proposed changes which have taken into consideration some of the issues earlier raised. I believe with a few more minor changes I could support the project. Although the dining room window was reduced in size, it nevertheless remains in place, albeit smaller than originally proposed. My concern is the light pollution will still emanate from the smaller window, which is in the very center of my nighttime view. The solution to this issue is easy. A small narrow wall perpendicular to the window would block the light and solve the problem of continuing nighttime light pollution. With a small wall they can have their window and I can have my nighttime view. This is very important to me. With regard to windows in the hallway leading to the master bedroom, it is crucial to see the detail for the proposed screening in order to be certain the screening will shield light from the hallway windows. I am hoping we can see the detail prior to the July 18 hearing. The front door, which is glass, will contribute to the light pollution emanating from the house and will be visible from 600 Ridge Road. The windows at this entryway will contribute light Pollution which will also be visible from 600 Ridge Road. To avoid additional light pollution, the front door should not be glass and the windows at the entryway need to be screened. Currently there are trees on the McDermott property at 601 Ridge Road that block a portion of the existing 510 house. Bartlett Tree Experts, through Art Tyson, a Board Certified Master Arborist, advises these trees are now beyond their usual life span and within five years these trees will likely require removal. Attached is a letter from Mr. Tyson. When those trees are removed, they will no longer shield the new 510 Ridge house from 600 Ridge Road, and therefore should not be relied upon in this process for screening. Zq EXrHIBIT CIO,- P t ot- -Z_ Office of Design Review Attn: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager July 15, 2013 Page 2 of 2 There is now a large cedar /fir tree on the 510 Property that needs to be retained in order to continue to shield a significant portion of the proposed house from 600 Ridge Road. I understood this tree would be retained; however, I cannot confirm retention from the July 8 landscape drawing. Please require retention of this tree as earlier agreed. 1 am surprised and disappointed that the applicant and Bob Swatt have ignored many offers conveyed by me and architect Heckmann to view their project from my house. They have never come to my house throughout the entire process to see how my view will be impacted by their project. I am hopeful the above suggested changes can be incorporated which would allow me to support the project. Thank you very much Best regards, /s/ Su"c &eCtcsccuc Bruce Breitman Enl: Letter from Bartlett Tree Experts cc: Riley Hurd, Esq. via email RHurd @rflawllp.com Michael Heckmann, Architect Consultant via email HeekmannArchitects @earthlink.net Paul Wong and Julie Huh via email mingwong888 @gmaii.com Miya Muraki, Architect via email mmuraki @swattmiers.com Robert Swatt, Architect via email rswattnswattmiers.corn .i�.a. ENIM-IB T INTO. Z 1 Ia.s9. .i. -P, 2 OF Z. Olt LATEMAIL Rat)ID ti �.l,P UJI JUL 1 6 ?013 RILEY F. Huao III RHUROQRFLAWLLP.COM D, L I `,; "' ^ 31 ;N July 15, 2013 Via E -Mail Only ( dzoatroats @toeuiToftibtcroii.org) Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 510 Ridge Road; File #21304 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 874 FOURTH STREET, SUITE D SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 -3246 TELEPHONE 415.453.9433 FACSIMILE 415.453.8269 WWW.RFLAWLLP.COM Our office continues to represent Mr. Bruce Breitman in connection with the above - referenced application. Mr. Breihnan is the owner of the home at 600 Ridge Road, which is uphill from the proposed project, and which has primary views directly over the subject property. We are pleased to report that, since the last hearing on this matter, significant progress has been made by the applicants in mitigating the impacts on Mr. Breitran's property. It is our position that with a few, relatively minor, additional changes, findings for approval of this project could be made, and a prolonging of the review process avoided for all involved. Light Pollution A distinguishing feature of Mr. Breitman's home, and the neighborhood in general, is a completely dark night sky, which allows for amazing nighttime views of San Francisco and the Bay. Tiburon's Design Review findings specifically address light pollution and afford protections to surrounding properties. Section 16- 52.020(H)(8) states that the DRB should consider the following: "Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes." ffiffilm "I'm Fy -Sa ti RagghI ant i ta;,I.I.P Tiburon DRB July 15, 2013 Page 2 of 4 In response to the direction of the DRB and neighbor comments, the applicants have proposed changes in an attempt to address light pollution from their project. With the following modifications, we believe the required finding under 16- 52.020(H)(8) could appropriately be made: 1. Dining Room Window - The reduction in the size of this window is a vast improvement, however, given its location directly in the lower- middle of the 600 Ridge Road viewshed, even this smaller window will be very visible at night. Fortunately, there is a simple solution, with little to no impact on the applicants, but great improvement for the uphill neighbors. The installation of an exterior wall or screen that extends out perpendicular to the window from its western jamb for a length of 3 feet would shield the window completely, while still providing the applicants with unobstructed views in all relevant directions. Of all the changes requested herein, this small component would have the most significant effect. 2. Lower Level Bedroom Hallway - The applicants propose to keep this massive expanse of glazing, but to incorporate a vertical wood screen. Such screening can be effective when designed properly and installed in a permanent fashion. We would request a condition requiring a more detailed design of this screen, and measures that prevent its easy future removal. 3. Main Entry Windows and Door - The main entry windows and glass door will still be very visible from the residence at 600 Ridge Rd. A size reduction, clearstory -type windows, or the wood screen system used elsewhere should be required to be incorporated in this area. These three minor changes will go a long way in preserving the dark night sky that currently exists in this neighborhood. Landscaping Significant opportunities exist for mitigating the effects of this project through careful and effective landscaping and the applicants' new landscape plan makes progress in this regard The following issues remain: 1. Bay Laurels - The southeast corner of 510 Ridge is a key area for vegetative screening. The new landscape plan proposes the planting of Bay Laurel trees in this area, which are stated on the plan to grow to 40 feet in height. Utilizing this species would undo all of the gains achieved by the redesign, as 40 -foot trees ENHIBIT NO Ragghiantil, ir;111)LLP Tiburon DRB July 15, 2013 Page 3 of 4 would obliterate the views from 600 Ridge. A tree species that grows to a maximum of the height of the approved residence should be substituted. 2. Trees at 601 Ridge Road - An aged grove of pine trees exists on the property at 601 Ridge Road. At this time, these trees serve as an uphill visual screen, however, due to the age of these trees and their poor health, it is not anticipated they will survive much longer. Accordingly, these trees should not be relied upon as a screening mechanism, and other methods employed. (See Bartlett Tree Service analysis submitted by Mr. Breitman). 3. Cedar/Fir Tree - There is a currently existing large Cedar tree at the front of the applicants' property that screens much of the existing home at 510 Ridge. This tree was previously misidentified on the plans as a "fir," and is apparently now proposed to be removed (Plan L1 does not specify which trees are being taken out, but does not show the retention of this tree.) This tree should be required to remain as an important screening element. These landscape edits will supplement the design changes made thus far, and those proposed above, and will help the project comply with the Town's design guidelines. House Elevation A large component of neighbor complaints regarding this project has been view blockage. According to the applicants, the elevation of the proposed home is supposedly constrained by their desire to utilize the existing foundation. It strains credulity to suggest that 50 -year old foundations will be salvaged to try and support an expensive new home like this one. In fact, from an engineering perspective, the old foundations cannot be used for new shear walls or moment frames. Given the high degree of probability that the foundations will be found to be unusable, the home could simply be lowered 2 -3 feet into the hillside, which would still provide the applicants with all desired views, while greatly improving the view of uphill neighbors. Since the design does not utilize a stepped approach as set forth in the Hillside Design Guidelines (See Sheet DR -12), this lowering of the home could result in the same net effect while not requiring a major design change. Conclusion While it is unfortunate that the applicants and their team have refused to engage Mr. Breitman since the last hearing, or even visit his property, progress has been made. Addressing the issues herein will go a long way in mitigating remaining impacts and KUHM NO. z� hagghlantI I F LLP Tiburon DRB July 15, 2013 Page 4 of 4 bringing closure to this application. Thank you for your attention to these important matters. CC: Bruce Breitman Michael Heckman Very Truly Yours, Riley F. Hurd III Robert McDermott 601 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA, 94920 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA, 94920 Attention: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager t; n, J JUL 10 2013 U PLA NIING DIVISION! July 16, 2013 Subject: Application for Construction of a New Single - Family Dwelling at 510 Ridge Road Dear Dan and Members of the Design Review Board I have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicants on July 8th and commend them and their architects for the modifications they have made to the amount of glazing in the dining room and the shielding they have proposed to reduce light emissions from some of the other windows. There has been, however, no lessening of the intrusion the proposed house would make into the views of Racoon Strait that I and my family have enjoyed for 29 years and plan to enjoy for many, many years to come. My position regarding the importance of these views as well as my other concerns has been expressed to you in my letters of May 30 and July 9 as well as in my comments made at the DRB hearing on June 6th. I reiterate them here as briefly as possible. 1. Non - compliance with the Town of Tiburon's Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings Nothing in the revised design addresses the need for this application to conform with the Town's Guidelines, in particular measures to meet Goal 1: Reduce Effective Bulk by cutting the building into the hillside and terracing the building using the slope. Since this application has been deemed by the Town to be one for the Construction of a New Single - Family Dwelling, surely the Town's Guidelines should be respected. This has been the case for all the homes built in Hill Haven in recent years as I tried to demonstrate in my letter of July 9th. The existing house at 510 Ridge Road is already more dominant in its height and bulk than its neighbors and the proposed new house is even more prominent. At the hearing on June 6th, Architect Bob Swatt stated that the house is not designed to be terraced and built into the hillside because the owners have chosen to retain the existing foundation. This does not seem to be a valid argument for not complying with the Guidelines. Especially since this 43 year old foundation has probably exceeded its useful life and should be removed for safety reasons. In any case, all the other applicants for building new homes in this neighborhood have had to accept the consequences of choosing a hillside lot in Tiburon. Why should this case be different from those of others who have purchased existing homes, torn thergdown and built new houses within the Town's Guidelines? EX�HIBTT NO, 1of4 2. Loss of "Slot" View between 510 Ridge Road and 1910 Straits View Drive Nothing in the revised design addresses my concerns over the loss of views of Racoon Strait. The only relevant change is a reduction of the height of the parapet which has been lowered by six inches. That is to say it is now six inches lower than the existing roof line whereas previously it would have been at exactly the same height as the existing roof. As I have illustrated through the photos attached to my two letters and as you have all seen in person, the proposed design would take away a significant portion of the "slot" view of Racoon Strait we enjoy between 510 Ridge Road and 1910 Straits View Drive. The proposed design does not provide sufficient compensation for our loss of this "slot" view with an improved view of the water above the house. The main issue is the heights of the ceilings and resulting roof lines, including their overhangs, plus the addition of a "parapet" surrounding the proposed skylights. The Dining Room has a 10' high ceiling and the Living Room has a 10' 6 "' high ceiling above a floor which is 1' higher than that of the Dining Room. The impact of these ceiling heights on my views is compounded by the addition of a 3'6" high "parapet" intended to shield the neighbors' night time views from light emanating from two large skylights. One skylight is 20' long over the interior wall of the Living Room. The other skylight, about 9' long, is over the stairwell next to the entry hallway. I maintain that these skylights are not necessary at all thus negating the need for the parapet. There will be a massive amount of daylight coming in through the floor -to- ceiling windows of the 50' long Dining /Living Room area. This flood of day light will be augmented by 20' long floor -to- ceiling glass windows on the south side of the Living Room, immediately adjacent to the interior wall, which is meant to be illuminated by the skylight above. The NE -SW orientation of the proposed house is such that there will be light streaming into the Dining Room /Living Room area from the rising sun early in the morning until the sun sets on the south end of the Living Room in the late afternoon. I believe that there will be so much sunlight coming into this house that screens will be needed to prevent Ultra Violet damage to floors, furniture, art objects, etc. All of the daylight which will be coming into the Living /Dining area will also provide light in the stairwell which will also be lit from light coming in from the front door and the entry hallway immediately adjacent to the stairwell. I contend, therefore, that the parapet is not needed other than to provide aesthetic relief, through the use of wooden siding, to the otherwise plain, flat roof line. While this "attribute" may be appreciated by some, it is we, the residents of 601 Ridge Road as well as our immediate neighbors, who will be looking at this "attribute" 2417 and we would much rather have better views of Racoon Strait. A sensible alternative to the skylight parapet providing aesthetic relief would be to have the very wide (24 ") edges of the garage /entry way roof paneled with the same 1 x 6 T &G wooden siding which is proposed for the parapet as well as for several of the house's main exterior walls. This wooden treatment is already planned for the thinner roof edges of the Dining /Living Room areas. EIT'HIBI-T No 2of4 Elimination of the parapet, while essential, is not sufficient in itself since the roof line, including the overhang on the water side, would come into play and have to be reduced. While we would have to work out exact dimensions I believe that reducing the ceiling height in the Dining Room to 9', eliminating the 1' step up from the Dining to the Living Room area, and reducing the Living room ceiling height to 9'6" should bring sufficient water views above the house to compensate for the loss of the "slot" view on the north side. 3. Light emissions from windows: It is in the area of light emissions that the revised design has made a number of significant improvements. The large reduction in the amount of glazing along the north wall of the Dining Room is clearly a step in the right direction, although I still feel that there is no need for any windows at all on that wall. The views of Racoon Strait, San Pablo Bay and the East Bay would not be effected if this wall were completely solid. In fact, having no windows there could be a benefit since the views of the adjacent houses along Straits View Drive would be blocked. The proposed wooden screens along the bedroom corridor would clearly be beneficial for shielding up -hill neighbors from the inevitable night lights in this area and are therefor a welcome change. What I do not understand, however, is the lack of similar screening or reduction in glazing in the north facing walls of the entrance way and the stairwell area on the lower floor. This concern should be addressed by either wooden screens and /or reduced amount of glazing. Windows can surely be designed to provide light to the hallway and stairwell without causing problems for the neighbors' night time views. The garage door is still shown as being aluminum with glass panels, although it is said that the glass will be painted on the back (i.e. inside) side. This "solution" seems strange since the purpose of glass is to let light through. If the owner does not wish to have light come through the garage door a solid construction would be more sensible. An attractive solution would be to have wooden panels on the garage door similar to the 1 x 6 T &G wooden siding proposed for several walls of the main house and mentioned above for the roof edges. 4. Landscaping: A new landscaping plan was included with the revised drawings submitted on July 8th. Some very large trees are proposed, some as tall as 30' or 40', which, if allowed to reach these heights, would intrude significantly into what would be left of my "slot" view of Racoon Strait. It does not make sense to plant trees that are able to grow to such enormous heights since, in order to comply with the Town's Ordinance on Trees and Views, they would have to be constantly trimmed. Even the "large shrubs" which are proposed along the edge of the property as a sort of hedge would, if left to grow to their mature height of 20 feet, be too tall and not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. At the meeting on June 6th here was discussion about the existing 30' cedar tree. This tree has been allowed to grow to a height which has been disturbing my view of Racoon Strait for several years and it should be removed. It makes sense to 3 of 4 me to remove most of the existing vegetation and implement an agreed landscaping plan. The proposed plan is a good basis for discussion. I look forward to discussing these concerns at the meeting on July 18 and hope that we all can reach a mutually acceptable solution so that we can allow Paul and Julie to get on with completing their new home. Sincer R6ert cD ermott cc. Paul Wong & Julie Huh 4of4 ENIHIBIT 11 . Date: _July 16' 2013 jtl I JUL 11U l f I From: Jaime and Carolyn Cohan CLfjNN 11 Address: 604 Ridge Rd Tiburon CA To: Town of Tiburon Planning Department 1- t- • I /We have met with Paul Wong and or Julie Huh to review the Swatt /Miers architectural plans which were submitted for Design Review this month. These plans are for the remodel / addition to their home at 510 Ridge Rd., Tiburon, CA. I /We hereby approve of this design. Sincerely, Jaime and Carolyn Cohan Paula Little 420 Ridge Road Tiburon,Ca. 94920 July 16, 2013 To: Town of Tiburon Planning Department RE: 510 Ridge Road Residence of Paul Wong and Julie Huh Dear Design Review Board Members, Ilij j 7 I f013` ! it PLl-,NN�!NG D!%ISION I am writing to offer my full support of the revised plans for 510 Ridge Road. Over the past two (2) years, I have met with Julie and Paul regarding the plans for their new home. It is a stunning design created by the renowned Swatt/Miers Architects. During this period of time, Julie and Paul with their architects have made numerous iterations of their design to accommodate the concerns of their immediate neighbors. Some of these changes include: 1) Lowered the ridge line of the existing house 2) Drastically decreased the amount of glazing 3) Shifted, reduced, and lowered the skylight 4) Eliminated the parapet 5) Downsized the master suite and placed it from the upper to the lower level We live in Tiburon because it is one of the most beautiful places to call "home." The original houses in Hill Haven were built in the 50's and 60's. Many of the older homes have been renovated and/or replaced. It's quite remarkable and unusual that the Wong- Huh home is being built on the original owner's "footprint." During the 25 years I have lived in Hill Haven, I have seen many changes in home styles..... from Cape Cod to Contemporary. Each one is unique but fits right into the neighborhood. The newly completed contemporary home at 460 Ridge Road just sold close to $9 million within a few days of the opening and with multiple offers. Julie and Paul have been active members of the Hill Haven Property Owners' Association since they purchased their home. We so enjoy that they,with their delightful children have attended so many of our social and business functions. EXHIBIT NO> PC6rZ. It is my sincere hope that the Wong -Huh revised plans be accepted in their entirety. It's time they get to build their "dream home" and move in! Most sincerely, KHIBIT NCB. 2- -'. Z. Or- 2 Scott and Annie Woods 623 Ridge Road Tiburon, Ca 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Planning Department JUL RE: 510 Ridge Road i ; LU I J Dear Design Review Board, We are writing to give full support for the revised plans at 510 Ridge rd. We are residents of Hill Haven just up the road from Paul Wong and Julie Huh's residence. We met Paul and Julie two years ago when they purchased 510 Ridge. Since becoming members of our community Paul and Julie have been nothing but gracious and inclusive in the design and development of their property. They invited us as well as numerous other neighbors to review their plans. There have been many changes made to appease neighbors who are in closer vicinity to their property (which include reducing glazing, lowering of the roofline which actually improves neighbors views from the current views, eliminated the parapet, downsized the master - suite and moved from upper to lower level etc...) and we feel strongly that they have made enough changes to the design and it should now be approved. It is a wonderful contemporary design by well -known and respected architects, Swatt /Miers and will be a fantastic and aesthetically pleasing addition to the neighborhood. E-KiHIM NO, P. i 6;=z We feel very strongly that while it is important to listen and consider neighbors concerns in the development of new homes, it is not the business of neighbors to have a hand in designing other people's homes to their taste. Paul and Julie have gone to great lengths to address all valid concerns. The design of 510 Ridge is appealing and well within building code and standards for the area and should be approved. Sincerely, ,,Scott and Annie Woods E1 H IBIS' NO, 1)< 2 e�— Z- July 1.8, 2013 Office of Design Review Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Wong/Huh, 501 Ridge Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 091 -24 Gentlepersons: AP. 1 8 21,13 PLAN' d%1! G DJV131ON We write to support approval of the application filed by Paul Wong and Julie Huh to construct a new single - family dwelling with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. This couple has met with us on several occasions to show us the plans for their home at the location above. We believe that they have sustained considerable expense and time delays in attempting to satisfy neighbor's concerns regarding the plans and have done all that they could. Please accept their proposal and welcome flier to our community. Cordially, Lynn E. Spitler, MD EXHIBIT NO. 3 C) I � cS� E p U = p 0 O U _ CIO Cf) „ U) c� t1i ti Q) p Q) p O � to ry— U CIO +-- ?� E Cll p p p p Cl) p cz j p o C- Q) U) co �, M.(D m U s p N co U' Z3 E N U c- U pU Z ui rr W J U) 0 0 C: (2) 0 0 0 0 C/) 0 D C) (- 1 0 Q) n 0 2) CO co 0 Cl) (1) t _0 m CZ 0 _0 u) C6 0 0) 0 C co Q) 0 0 -0 z Cf) Q) 0- rr '10 = u) , (3) E I .;' (3) 0 Q. C1- l) T O-J o — 0 >1 — 3� CD Q) U) -0 (2) 0- Q- E 0 0) c co 0 0) 0 0 o 0 0 -o -- (D 0) 0 C: co (D 0 C: 0 3 : :3 0 I CO 0 — Q) Q) c :D 0 0. = Cf) 0 n o 0 co (D U) :3 -0 Ln C) E U) I co _0_0 0 c— - > o z �5 :3 1 yi O O O O a 0 0 rr 0) 0 E 0 0 rr co O O O O 1 W 0 Q) Q) c FE a� 0 c- C) 0 C) 64- 0 0 z U rn U) CIO w 0 U) Q) 0 CIO 0- E 0 z s wil 0 cz a 0 {� 0 0 c e 0 4 Im Nit, AN, 2] 05 co 0 .C- T C-L 4�J) c C5 E-� m z O U) U) (D N 0 Q — o �� a O c- 4� N o� M n� ® E O 0 vi v —° -0 Q) Q > —U) ua � o °) � a) O O > N 0} (1) o - ° _ C/) � o U U cz >1 N C- c N CO U) 00 .D 0 0 4-4 N O O Q� -U) cz oo D �o 0 0 � ° O cv z cn U) m z • • CO N co o c CO co O 0 0 O C N O m C- a C5 4-- ISO 0 • • • co O E co O Q) > C .> K 6 N C- co C— U 2 N N > cn _ O O Q CO N tll +� Q) _c- 0 4 O U C Q� O z m • N cn cn co O co O i� L O c� O O Z) X cz E O Q77 O N O A O O c� O O O m U co co O i-� CD • • c� O Q.. � N O N j= CU (D cn P Q) Co Q � O CO > -O (ll co O� Q) N CO k s cn U cn Q. O Q. O Li c`(? �I z /� \�� �� � �] �� ƒ q � � d� J Q� T� w h ��� +5 -- -p z 1 i++