Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2013-10-16 (2)To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting October 16, 2013 Agenda Item: � P_ Subject: 2308 Mar East Street: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for the Construction of Additions to an Existing Single- Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception; Mar East Realty, LLC, Owners; Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, Appellants; File #21220; Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 195 -01 Reviewed By: � - PROJECT DATA Address: Owner: Applicant: Appellants: Assessor's Parcel No File Number: Lot Size: Zoning: General Plan: Flood Zone: SUMMARY 2308 Mar East Street Mar East Realty, LLC Mohamad Sadrieh Magdalena Yesil & Jim Wickett 059 -195 -01 21220 11,000 Square Feet (Dry Land = 2,017) R -2 (Two - Family Residential) H (High Density Residential) X/Ve On April 18, 2013, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception, on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. The owners of the property at 2306 Mar East Street (Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil), hereinafter referred to as "appellants," have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision. The appeal is attached as Exhibit 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling, located at 2308 Mar East Street, with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. Currently the property is improved with a two -story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 9 The proposal would incorporate a small addition as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel. At the main level, the front entry walkway would be partially filled in for a new interior stairwell. Nana Walls (fully openable glass wall systems) would be installed on two corners of the living room. The rear dining room windows would not be fully operable. At the lower level, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space. The right side deck would be reduced in depth to comply with the permitted side yard setback encroachment, and include construction of a small walkway to access the existing rear deck at this level. A new exterior deck/walkway would be constructed from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. The proposal would increase the lot coverage on the dry land portion of the property by 75 square feet, resulting in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). Therefore, a variance has been requested for excess lot coverage. The current dwelling has an existing gross floor area of 2,569 square feet. The proposal would increase the floor area by approximately 240 square feet, resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,809 square feet. As the maximum penmitted gross floor area ratio for the property is 706 square feet, the proposal would exceed the maximum by 2,103 square feet. Therefore, a floor area exception has also been requested. December 1. 2011 Design Review Board meeting A previous application (File #21116) for improvements on this property was reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 1, 2011 (see minutes attached as Exhibit 2). The application included larger room additions and deck area, and variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. During the December 1, 2011 meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street spoke in opposition to the project, noting negative privacy, view, and lighting impacts due to the proposed kitchen addition/expansion and decks at the rear of the dwelling. The neighbors asserted that the location of the proposed deck expansions at both the upper and lower level would be in close proximately to the master bedroom of 2' )06 Mar East Street, in addition to lighting and glazing impacts on a secondary bedroom and outdoor patio at the front of the home. The neighbors also asserted that the kitchen expansion and deck additions would come closer to various rooms at 2310 Mar East Street, which would result in privacy, noise, lighting, odors and view infringements for that property. The Board also voiced similar concerns, and encouraged the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be substantial to both neighbors. The Board struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances requested, and continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors on both modifications and an adequate compromise, in order to move forward. After the December 1, 2011 meeting, the applicant requested several continuances for the project and ran up against a Permit Streamlining Act deadline. The applicant therefore withdrew the application, and subsequently filed a new application (File #21220) to re -start the clock for the Permit Streamlining Act. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 9 Town C°ouncd. ,Meet.ing October 16, 2013 In general, the Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for all parties to be happy with the project, but explained that privacy is limited for decks and living areas in homes along Mar East Street. The Board also recognized that the project was challenging, but overall felt that the applicant should be permitted to expand outside of the existing building envelope, provided that the expansions were modest, which the Board believed the current proposal to be. The Board continued the project to the June 7, 2012 meeting and directed the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and consider the additional design modifications it suggested. June 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting The Board considered revised plans on June 7, 2012, which included the following modifications to the project design: The proposed upper level deck had been pulled back to align with the proposed kitchen addition and lower level deck. ® The horizontal privacy screen on the upper level deck was replaced with an option of either an obscure fabric "sail" or a metal louver screen, to be installed at a 45 degree upward angle on the west side of the deck. ® The portions of the lower level deck closest to 2306 Mar East Street would include installation of a six foot (6') high obscure privacy screen. ® Windows on the southwest elevation facing 2306 Mar East Street were further reduced in size. At the June 7, 2012 meeting (see minutes attached as Exhibit 4), the neighbors at 2306 Mar East Street and 2310 Mar East Street continued to object to the proposal, with both expressing remaining concerns regarding privacy, noise and lighting impacts. The neighbors also asserted that expansion of a non - conforming structure would be in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The Board disagreed with the neighbors, and determined that the applicant had made significant changes toward addressing the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy, noise and lighting impacts. The Board agreed that the metal louver screening concept would work better for privacy than the fabric sail in helping to screen the master bedroom at 2306 Mar East Street. The Board determined that a "cookie cutter" zoning district had been imposed on this neighborhood, where a majority of homes do not conform to the R -2 zoning standards, resulting in an unusual neighborhood with special circumstances. As the existing structure was much smaller and lacked useable deck space, the Board concluded that the applicant should have the ability to improve their property in a modest fashion, and did not feel that the applicant should be punished because this was the last home to be expanded along this particular section of Mar East Street. The Board stated that it would be a hardship to the applicant to be unable to expand the home modestly, when others in the vicinity had been permitted to expand, sometimes to a larger degree than the applicant's request. The Board approved the project on a 3 -0 vote, with two Boardmembers absent. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 k May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting The applicant made several modifications to the project design in order to respond to both the Board's and the neighbor's concerns, including the following: + A reduction in the depth of the rear deck at the upper level from 12' to 9'6" with installation of an opaque glass horizontal screen on the west side of the deck, facing 2306 Mar East Street. o The entry door location had been modified so that the door would face Mar East Street instead of facing the dwelling at 2306 Mar West Street. ® The highest strip of windows located above the proposed stairwell, which faces 2306 Mar East Street had been eliminated in an effort to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts on 2306 Mar East Street. a The exterior deck lights had been modified from soffit lights to low deck lighting, which would be installed one foot (1') above the surface of the deck; in an effort to reduce lighting impacts on 2306 Mar East Street and 2310 Mar East Street. A reduction in the width of the proposed lower deck from 12' to 5'10" with installation of a 5'3" obscure glass screen on the west side of the deck to provide privacy between the subject property and 2306 Mar East Street. Elimination of the left side deck expansion and incorporation of a three foot (3') walkway to coiulect the existing left side deck to the proposed rear deck. ® Elimination of the vertical support structures and the small deck in front of the proposed expanded kitchen at the upper level, in an effort to improve the view and reduce privacy impacts for 2310 Mar East Street. $ A reduction in the size of the window proposed in the expanded kitchen to increase privacy between the subject property and 2310 Mar East Street. The new application was reviewed at the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting (see minutes attached as Exhibit 3). At that meeting, several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project, including the owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The neighbors noted remaining concerns regarding the amount of glazing and lighting impacts, in addition to privacy, noise and view infringements. The Board was generally sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns and agreed that more could be done to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts for 2306 Mar East Street, but ultimately felt that the project, as designed, would improve privacy for 2310 Mar East Street. The Board provided further direction to the applicant to modify the project, including pulling the upper level deck back to align with the proposed lower level deck, reducing the amount of glazing at the entry area, and eliminating a horizontal screening system on the upper level deck and replacing it with a vertical screening system. TOWN of TIB4lRON PAGE 3 OF 9 Duo! }}��c'�v.: 715; August 15, 2012 Town Council meeting The property owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street both filed separate appeals of the Board's decision to the Town Council. On August 15, 2012, the Town Council heard and considered testimony fiom both neighbors, as well as the applicant. Copies of the Town Council minutes are attached as Exhibit 5. During deliberations, the Town Council recognized that the Design Review Board tried to accommodate both parties, while providing guidance to the applicant. The Council ultimately opined that privacy was the main issue with the project, and agreed with the appellants that the variance findings could not be made, as the project would result in impacts to the neighboring properties. However, the Council recognized that there appeared to be ways to modify the project so that these impacts would be lessened on the neighbors, while still allowing the applicant to obtain the desired project result requested. The Council also felt that there may be ways to articulate the necessary variance findings, depending on how the project was modified and the magnitude of the variance requested. The Council gave direction to the applicant to not expand the project outside of the existing building footprint, and that a modest expansion outside of the footprint, if not impactful to the neighbors, might be supported. The Council directed the applicant to continue working with the neighbors, as there was clearly a need to work toward a compromise. The Council therefore adopted Resolution Nos. 29 -2012 & 30 -2012 (Exhibit 6) granting both appeals and denying the project without prejudice, allowing the applicant to re- submit a substantially different application . for the Design Review Board to review. March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting The Design Review Board first reviewed the subject application at the March 7, 2013 meeting (see minutes and staff report attached as Exhibits 7 c& 8 ). In addition to the project as described above, the project design at that time included a new upper level deck extending off the living room at the right side of the home, and would have raised the lower level right side deck to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom. At that meeting, the adjacent property owners at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street raised concerns about potential acoustic privacy impacts that could be caused by the proposed upper level deck and the Nana Walls proposed at the rear of the house for both levels. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but was unable to form a consensus on the merits of or potential modifications to the application. The Board continued the application to the April 4, 2013 meeting and encouraged the applicant and neighbors to attempt to meet to address these concerns. The applicant subsequently met with the owners of 2306 Mar East Street and with Town staff to discuss possible modifications to the project design. The applicant submitted revised project plans that eliminated the previously proposed main level deck on the right side of the house and proposed Nana Walls to be installed only on two comers of the upper level living room. The lower level deck was modified to no longer be raised to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom. Other proposed improvements of the project design were unchanged. TOWN OF TiBUR N PAGE 5 OF 9 April 18, 2013 Design Review Board meeting The Design Review Board reviewed the revised project design on April 18, 2013 (see minutes and staff report attached as Exhibits 9 & 10). At that meeting, the property owner at 2306 Mar East Street raised concerns about noise from the proposed improvements that would disrupt their ability to sleep in their bedrooms and requested changes to the window and walkway designs to address these issues. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised project design and detennined that the applicants had addressed the concerns of the neighbors as best as possible and that the project would not substantially affect the overall sound situation in the vicinity. The Board also noted that glass safety railings that would be installed at the location of the Nana Walls would mitigate noise from the living rooms when the walls were open. The Board stated that they could make the findings for the requested variance and floor area exception and voted 4 -0 to conditionally approve the project. On April 29, 2013, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. :_ : ! .. There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #l: The project is inconsistent with previous Town Council direction to minimize view and privacy impacts and with principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding privacy and noise. Staff Response: On September 5, 2012, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 29 -2012 granting the appellants' appeal of the previous application for this property. The resolution states, in part, that "differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity if such improvements would result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties." The Design Review Board determined that the revised project design would not result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding property owners. The removal of the main level deck eliminated a potential outdoor active space that could have resulted in potential acoustical privacy concenzs for the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The Board believed that the installation of Nana Walls would not substantially change the existing noise conditions in the vicinity. The Board further noted that the Nana Wall would likely only be open during the day, as it is too cold at night for the walls to be open along the waterfront, which would minimize noise impacts during the times when the neighboring residents would be in their bedroom and need privacy. Ground #2: The required findings cannot be made to support the requested variance. TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 6 of 9 t 4 xn C.oun"J! ICC iM',, Staff Response: The requested variance for excess lot coverage is required for the additional lot coverage that would be created by the new upper level addition that would modify the building entry for a new interior stairwell. In order to grant a variance, the Design Review Board must make four findings required by Section 16- 52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The appeal contends that the following findings cannot be made for this application: 2. The strict application of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self- 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 staff reports prepared for the March 7 and April 18, 2013 Design Review Board meetings indicated that staff could not make this finding. At the April 18, 2013 meeting, the Design Review Board detennined that the exiting house has a substandard entryway that is well removed from the front property line and provides impractical access to the house. As a result, the Board made the finding that the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would result in a practical difficulty for the applicants. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As noted above, the Design Review Board determined that the revised project design would not result in substantial noise or privacy impacts on neighboring property owners. In addition, the requested variance was required only for additional lot coverage that would be created by the lower level deck/walkway and the entry addition. The Board determined that the lower level walkway was necessary to provide access from the interior of the house to the existing lower level deck outside of a bedroom and that neither the walkway nor the entry addition would result in substantial privacy impacts on the appellants' home. Ground #3: The project is inconsistent with previous Town Council direction for the applicant to work toward a compromise solution with neighboring property owners. Staff Response: Town Council Resolution No. 29 -2012 states, in part, that "there would appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and that the Appellants and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works towards that compromise." The application previously denied by the Town Council included rear decks at both the upper and lower levels, as well as a small kitchen addition located at the upper level left side, which required a side yard setback variance. After denial by the Town Council, the applicant met with the appellants and submitted a project with the current application which eliminated the rear deck TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 7 OF 9 spaces, kitchen addition, and the need for a side yard setback variance. The new project included a new deck extending off the living room at the right side of the building; conversion of a portion of the existing lower level rear deck to additional bedroom space; floor -to- ceiling height Nana Wall systems at the rear of both levels to replace existing non- operable windows; construction of a small walkway to access the existing rear deck at this level; and raising the level of the existing lower level deck to match the elevation of the adjacent bedroom. After the March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting the applicant met again with the appellants and further revised the project design. The revised project eliminated the proposed upper level deck, limited the Nana Walls to two congers of the upper level living room, and modified the lower level deck to no longer be raised to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom. The revised project design represents substantial changes from both the project design reviewed by the Town Council in 2012 and the design first presented to the Design Review Board at the March 7, 201' ) meeting. The minutes of the April 18, 2013 meeting (Exhibit 10) indicate that the Board concluded that the applicant had "bent over backwards" and "gone out of their way' to address the concerns of the neighbors. The extent of the project changes over time in response to the neighbors" concern is consistent with the direction of the Town Council to work toward a compromise on the project. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project. The revised project design does not appear to create substantial noise or privacy impacts on the appellants and represents a considerable compromise from the project plans previously reviewed by the Town Council. It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 12), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to deny the appeal. 3) Direct Staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. 1. Notice of appeal 2. Minutes of the December 1, 2011 Design Review Board meeting 3. Minutes of the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 4. Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 5. Minutes of the August 15, 2012 Town Council meeting 6. Town Council Resolution Nos. 29 -2012 & 30 -2012 7. Design Review Board staff report dated March 7, 2013 8. Minutes of the March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting "!°OWN of TiBURON PAGE 8 OF 9 9. Design Review Board staff report dated April 18, 2013 10. Minutes of the April 18, 201' ) Design Review Board meeting 11. Notice of Action and adopted conditions of approval 12. Appeal procedures 13. Application forrn and supplemental materials 14. Letter from Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, dated February 26, 2013 15. Letter fi•om David and Kathryn Kulik, dated February 26, 2013 16. Photograph submitted by Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, dated March 7, 2013 17. Letter from Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, dated April 11, 2013 18. Letter from Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, dated April 16, 2013 19. Letter from David and Kathryn Kulik, dated April 18, 2013 20. Letter from Elizabeth Brekhus, dated October 1, 2013 21. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous. Planning Manager S: WdnzinistrationlTowtz CouncillSta _(j'Reports42013lOctober 16 Draflsi2308 Mar East Street appeal report.doc TOWN OF Tisu ON PACE 9 OF 9 APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary) D t,,3 t,,3 I � t i. TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415 -435 -7373 11 %41 %M'. CI. ti boron. ca. tts sett lest Mailing Address: �J 0 � � C 1 C� � Q.-5t �� • � 1 6 y C �� � C- Fi q 'f (:7 21C Telephon4S"C — yo © _S Q 2 q (Work) (Home) FAX and/or e -mail (optional): t Y\ Q. 0 CA CX fAA a.- C,0 w1 ACTION BEING APPEALED ut`s �eSi ✓, Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: LA S Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: Name of Applicant: CL.—>T Re.c7l�'i -t-� Type of Application or Decision:tC G� t t.G R9 C� �CI S� 1'1511 C a� `�...` y � � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) l� � �� E C E � V E ApR 20o Z0 "r3 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LIAR Last Day to File Appeal: - %" Date Appeal Filed: 4_1 00 Fee Paid:' Receipt No./ ` f Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant an X300 flat fee or non - applicant S:WdministrationhFormsiNotice of Appeal form revised 3- 9- 2010.doc Revised March 2010 E." H_ T NOa C �� -? i 6f:� 3 We are Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil of 2306 Mar East St., Tiburon. We are appealing the decision the Design Review Board made at its April 18, 2013 meeting regarding 2308 Mar East Street where the DRB approved the Applicant's design as submitted, granting the Applicant a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage along with a Floor Area Exception. This is our second appeal to the Town Council on this subject. During our last appeal, the Town Council gave very specific direction to the DRB and we believe that the approved plans are contrary to that direction on privacy impacts. Specifically the Town Council in its Resolution No 29 -2012 dated Sept 5, 2012 said: "Differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity if such improvements would result in substantial view and privacy impacts on surrounding properties. Such differences were not necessarily a hardship ". The approved 2308 Mar East design has concentrated all the additions and major improvements on our side. This is the side of our home where our master and second bedrooms are located. These additions and improvements have a major impact on our privacy, specifically our ability to sleep. The design opens the Living Room with wrap- around accordion doors called Nana Walls on both sides of the corner that face our bedrooms, transmitting the sounds of the open floor -plan living room to our bedrooms and encouraging people to congregate in this corner across from our bedroom. It also expands the house further out towards our house and adds a walkway and deck expansions at the lower level, introducing foot traffic, circulation and noise in close proximity to where we sleep. We believe that these features have substantial negative privacy impacts on us, and the design's approved as submitted is a violation of on the Hillside Design Guidelines, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance on granting variances, and the Town Council's previous direction on Avoiding Privacy Impacts to neighbors. Hillside Design Guidelines on Acoustic Privacy Goal 2, Principle 9 - as quoted in the March 7th, 2013 Planning Staff Report states that "acoustic privacy is important to all residents and that dwellings should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors." As Planning Staff stated in their report to the DRB, "Section 16- S2.020(H) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance outlines guiding principles which are to be considered by the Design Review Board in reviewing site plan and architectural review applications. Subsection 2 of this code section states that the Board should consider the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise - generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and other topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions." We believe that these guidelines were disregarded by the DRB and the approved design creates a nuisance to us, and especially to our ability to sleep in our bedrooms. z;�,EI . In addition to the Hillside Design Guidelines, Tiburon Zoning Ordinance specifically states that a Variance can only be granted if all four findings for the variance can be made. We believe that the DRB's granting of the Excess Lot Coverage Variance was not justified because both Finding 3 and Finding 4 cannot be justified for this design. Finding 3. Establishing Hardship for the Applicant. The Planning Staff repeatedly stated, both in their March 7 and their April 18 2013 reports that, "Staff is unable to make this finding as the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not create an unnecessary hardship, but would only limit the applicant to a current building footprint and floor area that already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size." The Town Council also stated in Resolution No 29 -2012 that, "an expansion project could be designed without expanding outside of the existing building envelope that would reduce project impacts on the Appellants." In the DRB's justification of Hardship, they did not take into consideration that all of the functional elements such as stairs and walkways for the house could have been contained in the current footprint if the Applicant was not enlarging and adding bedrooms. In fact, but for the Applicant's adding a fourth bedroom to his design and incorporating a back deck into another bedroom, circulation around the house could be possible within the current footprint. Thus we agree with Staffs comments that the Hardship finding cannot be made and the Variance cannot be justified. Finding 4. "Thegranting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other properties in the vicinity`: As already discussed above, we believe the approved design with its Variance is injurious to our privacy, most specifically our acoustic privacy. The design's expansions and additions are concentrated across from our bedrooms and impact our ability to sleep. They are materially detrimental and injurious to us due to their negative lighting, acoustic privacy and noise pollution impacts. In Resolution No 29 -2012 The Town Council stated that "there would appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and thatAppellant's and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works towards that compromise." Since the Town Council meeting, we have repeatedly attempted to work with the Applicant. We have suggested moving the wall -to- ceiling accordion doors away from our side and to the center of their living room, opening up over the Bay, with fixed glass panels on either side for equal noise protection for both adjacent neighbors. Such a simple change would make a significant reduction in the acoustic impact of the remodel and still allow for view and Bay enjoyment. Even though the Applicant led us to believe that this and other changes would be incorporated into the submitted design for the April 18 DRB hearing, none were incorporated. Furthermore, during the April DRB meeting, the Applicant asked to go on record saying that he will reapply with a design that incorporates a deck off the living room. The DRB made its approval decision on the fact that the Applicant had made modifications and ignored the privacy impacts to our bedrooms that still existed in the submitted design. We believe the DRB did not follow the Town Council's direction, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and Hillside Guidelines in its approval of 2308 Mar East's plans as submitted and therefore we are appealing DRB's approval. E'"'HIM NO. P, 3 0-P3 about the height of the master bedroom. He said that it would be unlikely that Mr. Reynolds would have a 30 foot tall home below the site. He mentioned that the existing site is so overgrown that it was difficult to assess the privacy impact. He pointed out living in Tiburon is not a remote area and neighboring properties will be noticed. He said that interaction between houses can be addressed with landscaping, including some planting by the neighbors. Vice -Chair Emberson believed that a one foot reduction in building height was not a lot to ask and would make the neighbor happy. She said that the house would be gorgeous when it is built. She felt that the glazing might still be a problem and she would like to see it reduced a bit, but commented that everyone needs to give and take to make this work. Chair Kricensky said that looking at surrounding influences is a good thing to do when planning a site, and he thought that the applicant had done a good job addressing concerns. He said that sacrificing a bedroom was a good solution. He said that he had seen louvers installed for windows and they do work. He agreed that the wall at the stairwell needed an architectural element but suggested the window could be smaller. He noted that there was a verbal agreement on the one foot reduction in height at the prior meeting and he thought that one foot would make a difference for the view from the neighbor across the street. Planning Manager Watrous said if the Board wishes to reduce the height by one foot they could make it a condition of approval. For the stairwell window, he suggested specifying a percentage to reduce the size. The consensus of the Board was to reduce the building height by one foot and modify Condition of Approval No. 12 to reduce the window size by 30 %. Chair Kricensky and Boardmember Tollini both noted that they agreed with the staff report on the findings needed for the floor area exception. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Emberson) that the request for 460 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval that the highest point of the house be reduced by one foot and the text of Condition #12 be revised to state that the size of the front stairway window shall be reduced by no less than 30 %. Vote: 4 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet, respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R -2 zone. The additions would cover 7 1. 1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 271 -03. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two -story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 12/1/11 L%.H NO. .Z The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in- filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would also be expanded at the rear, and a new exterior stair /walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. Tidal lots, such as the subject property, use the area above the mean high tide line (dry land), in determining gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches, and the right side yard setback is 4 feet. The application proposes minor expansions within both side yard setbacks, and would continue the non- conforming setbacks of 6 inches on the left side and 4 feet on the right. As the minimum side yard setbacks in the R -2 zone are 8 feet, variances have been requested to continue the reduced side yards. Mohammad Sadrieh, architect, said that the property is currently unoccupied and the owners live out of town. He said that the plans were presented to neighbors late and they had not had enough time to discuss concerns with neighbors. He said that he would like to work with neighbors more and come back at a later date with changes. Mr. Sadrieh said that the current residence was built in 1956 and is in need of renovation. He said that they would change the footprint to allow for three bedrooms and a study. They propose to convert the existing lower level to a bedroom and bathroom and the kitchen, second bedroom, and stairs would be expanded. He said that they would add a new deck to the main living area on the upper ground floor entry level. He said that they were attempting to improve the view and lower the height of the front of the structure. He said that the project would dramatically improve the overall appearance of the property by including new extensive landscaping. Mr. Sadrieh said that it would be premature for him to make changes until they have had the chance to meet with neighboring properties to see the view impacts. He said that they would be glad to discuss the placement of windows to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. He also said that the lighting on the deck could be moved to the wall and located two feet higher than the existing deck surface. He noted that there also was a suggestion to reduce the size of the decks, but he felt that both decks provide the only outdoor space adjacent to living space and they intentionally kept the decks modest. He said that they would like to work with neighbors to find a way to provide privacy without blocking their own view of the Golden Gate Bridge. He said that they have discussed retaining an existing tree that provides privacy and screening, and they intend to amend their landscape plan to retain that tree and also add other plantings to provide color. He said that the side yard is a dark space surrounded by walls, and would only be used as a landscape area and not for outdoor use. He said that an existing fence in that area provides excellent screening, and they would be glad to discuss any additional screening measures. The public hearing was opened. TTBTT Z- NO.- TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 12/1/11 Jim Wickett said that he serves with the California Coastal Commission and he appreciates what the Board does as a community service. He stated that Mar East Street is going through a generational change and new owners are moving in as original owners are passing away. He said that many of the houses are on the water or over the water, yet very close together. He stated that through good design privacy has been maintained. He said that being on the water creates a special situation for lighting where even small lights reflect on the water and at night when looking toward Angel Island it is pitch black, and one light can ruin the whole view for the entire neighborhood. He said that noise is also a big factor and people are very careful about noise in the neighborhood. He said that he was excited to have a new neighbor, but his goal is to share the neighborhood without giving up privacy. Mr. Wickett added that the greatest violation to privacy would be from the right corner deck that would place the neighbors within feet of his master bedroom. He noted that the new corner deck would violate the setback requirements and could be removed without affecting views. He said that the rear addition extending past the current footprint of the house was overly aggressive and he would like to see the addition cut back significantly. He stated that both decks would see into his master bedroom and right onto his bed. He suggested privacy screens that would allow the applicant to enjoy views without infringing on his privacy. He would also like to see lighting minimized. He said that his house is about 25 feet lower than the entry to the applicant's house and privacy is provided by a tree. He was glad that they will keep the tree, but said he was unclear how that will be accomplished since a deck is proposed in that area. He suggested reducing the deck to a walkway in order to keep the existing tree. He said that changing the functionality of the house to the stairway would convert that area into a lighted space, and he suggested using privacy glass and reducing the size of windows in that area. He requested any lighting utilize low voltage lights and be placed at floor level to reduce light impact to neighbors. Vice -Chair Emberson asked where the lights are situated on Mr. Wickett's deck. Mr. Wickett said that the only lights on the deck are on the floor, with the tops of the lights covered, and the lights only shine down. Marsha Handley, trustee of the Hanley Trust, said that her parents built the house 2314 Mar East. She thought that the expansion was significant and she had concerns. She said that views of the Golden Gate Bridge were particularly important to her family because her grandfather helped build it. She said that the extension of the house significantly would affect the view both from upstairs and downstairs. Peter Wilton, owner, said that he has a similar home in Sidney, Australia, and he would like to see all of the neighbors happy. He said that the home is very old and has had no work since it was built in 1956. He said that the house is recessed far back from the other houses and they are trying to gain some access to outdoor space with a modest deck large enough for a table and a few chairs. He said that he would like to find a solution with neighbors and come back to the Board. The public hearing was closed. Vice -Chair Emberson said that she liked the remodel and felt that it would enhance the neighborhood. She agreed with the neighbors that the right corner deck could be removed without impacting the use of the deck. She said that the decks look pretty large from the neighbor's house and she would like to see some negotiation on the size. She also agreed that perhaps over the front entry the windows could be minimized so they would not intrude on the neighbor's privacy. She also liked the solution to use privacy glass. Boardmember Tollini stated that he had not visited the site and felt that it was clearly necessary to visit this site to have a meaningful understanding of the impacts. He saw some logic in being able to push the house out to the same degree as others, but said that that would not necessarily mitigate privacy and view TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 Ea »21EIB T 8 1211/11 � impacts. He said that the view impacts on the adjacent properties appeared to be substantial. He was hopeful that the neighbors would be able to work together to come up with solutions. Boardmember Johnson said that working with neighbors over the next few weeks would arrive at a collaborative solution, and he would like to leave the neighbors to work together and work out solutions. He hoped for a solution that would strike a balance with the neighbors. Chair Kricensky said that he visited the houses on either side and felt that once the neighbors have a chance to get together and discuss the project, they will come up with solutions. He said that Google Earth clearly shows the view impacts and that the applicant's house is recessed quite a bit. He also felt there was too much glass at the entry. He asked if the deck in front of the kitchen will be used, and Mr. Wilton said that it may not be used. Chair Kricensky said that the structure enclosing the decks could block views as well and asked that to be given some consideration. He also said that the graphics on the plans could be better and recommended enhancing the graphics to make it easier to read. Boardmember Johnson suggested it would be helpful to show an existing elevation and proposed elevation on the same page to be able to better compare the two. Boardmember Tollini pointed out that the variance finding that none of the other properties in the vicinity would be affected detrimentally is not usually a stumbling block, but the closeness of the houses in this area may make that finding difficult to make. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to continue 2308 Mar East Street to the January 19, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4 -0. 4. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two -story single- fanuly dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two -story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4.548 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058 - 282 -04. - CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15, 2011 G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #16 OF THE 11/03/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Tollini corrected a typographical error on page 5, paragraph 2, and line 2: "the planes" should be revised to "the plans ". ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2011 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 12 /1/11 within 12 feet, 6 inches of the left side property line in lieu of the 20 foot minimum side yard setback allowed in the RO -1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039 - 121 -14. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition to an existing two - story single- family dwelling on property located at 139 Hacienda Drive. An existing open deck on the upper level of the front of the house would be enclosed into a new solarium. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 80 square feet to a total of 4,498 square feet, which is less than the 6,327 square foot floor area ratio for this site. The addition would not increase the current lot coverage on the site. The proposed addition would extend to within 13 feet, 6 inches of the western (left) side property line. As a 20 foot side yard setback is required in the RO -1 zone, a variance is requested for reduced side yard setback. Judith Thompson, owner, said that they wish to infill an existing deck and the issue that brought them to the DRB is that the house and deck were built in the setback. There were no public comments. Vice -Chair Emberson said that the project was fairly simple and she saw no problem with it whatsoever. She said that it is not close to anyone. Boardmembers Johnson and Tollini agreed. Boardmember Tollini said that the only reason it needs to be looked at by the DRB was because of the variance, and he agrees with staff s findings. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 139 Hacienda Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0. 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21207; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches of the left side property line, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R -2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 271 -03. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two -story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in- filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would remain the same but include a small walkway to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 `� > 5/3/12 access the new rear deck, and a new exterior stair /walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches. The application proposes a minor expansion within the left side yard, and would continue the non - conforming setback of 6 inches at this side. As the minimum side yard setback in the R -2 zone is 8 feet, a variance has been requested to continue the reduced side yard. Mohamed Sadrieh, architect, said that they made numerous changes to reduce the impact of the project on adjacent homes. He said that they reduced the rear deck from 12 feet to 9 feet, 6 inches. He said that there would be opaque glass screening between the property and 2306 Mar East. He stated that the screen would be field tested and adjusted to be sure it provides appropriate screening. He said that their intent was to be sure no one standing on the deck can view the bedroom window of the neighboring house from any location. He said that in the previous design there were vertical support structures that had been removed. He said that they also removed the deck off the kitchen in order to preserve neighbors' views; had increased privacy for neighboring properties by reducing the kitchen window size and by switching the entry door location so it would face the street; had changed all exterior deck lights to be low shielded lights only one foot above the floor surface so they will not be visible from neighboring properties; had reduced the highest strip of windows; and they replaced the expansion from the bedroom with a three -foot walkway. He said that they adjusted the walkway into the lower level to provide an opening for the existing bay tree to protrude. Mr. Sadrieh said that these changes were difficult to visualize and he hoped that the Boardmembers could come to see them, but unfortunately only one member was able to visit the site. He asked if the other Boardmembers could come at a later date to ensure that the steps they are taking would dramatically improve the privacy situation. Peter Wilton, owner, said that the prevailing structures are all supported by multi -level decks with views of the Golden Gate Bridge. He stated that his property is very far back from other properties and showed aerial photos depicting the locations. He said that he was asking for a design that would be consistent with prevailing homes on the street. He said that his property has a lower deck that is partially obstructed by the neighboring house and does not allow view of the Golden Gate Bridge. He showed photographs of other neighboring houses and pointed out the large docks. He said that his own property has significant privacy issues from the adjoining properties, as do most of the properties on the street. He stated that they kept privacy issues in inind as they designed the kitchen pop -out addition, and he showed before and after views of 2310 Mar East from that area. He said that the addition would add a good deal of privacy and the deck would be the minimum size and fit completely with the prevailing structures. He then showed before and after views of 2306 Mar East from the addition and pointed out the increased privacy. He said that they tried to preserve views of neighboring properties and pointed out the views from 2306 Mar East would not be impacted. He said that the kitchen addition would not protrude into the view of 2310 Mar East and this would be one of the very few decks on the street with any privacy screening. Mr. Wilton said that they had multiple meetings with the neighbors to find resolution and the discussions were very constructive with Ms. Hansen. He said that they were not as successful with Mr. Kulik. He said that they were requesting to go beyond the building envelope because neighboring properties have TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #5 7k O. 5/3/12 massive expansions and they thought that this would be consistent. He also said that there is a maintenance problem with the stucco on the outside because of the location over the water. He said that he bought the house for his retirement and wanted to be able to live on the top floor. He said that the existing kitchen is only 50 square feet and there is not enough space to keep it within the existing building envelope. He pointed out that they had story poles on the property prior to Mr. Kulik purchasing the neighboring property. Vice -Chair Emberson asked if a pier was proposed. Mr. Wilton said that the original drawings included a dock, but they removed the dock out of respect for privacy. The public hearing was opened. David Kulik said that they purchased their property in 2011. He stated that his attorney reviewed the staff report and felt that there may be some CEQA issues even though this is a single- family dwelling. He said that the lot lines on the plans may not be accurate based on a survey that the trust holding both of these properties had previously done. He stated that one man owned both of these properties from the late 1960s until 2009 and he built 2310 Mar East around 2308 Mar East. Mr. Kulik stated that the addition would significantly impact the value of his property. He said that it was acceptable to renovate the 50- year old structure, but not to push out into the bay. He said that there was substantial value that could be added by developing within the building envelope. He felt that the expansion of the property would add value to 2310 Mar East but would take value away from his own property, and their quality of life would be significantly impacted. He said that this house is the largest investment his family has ever made and they counted on the DRB to protect their investment. Mr. Kulik then presented photographs of the view that would be impacted by the project. He said that his property is three stories and all views would be affected by the expansion. He showed photographs of the water views being impacted from various areas in the house and said that the privacy impact would be significant. He said that he could not support anything that would allow views into his home of his children. Boardmember Johnson asked what room the first photograph was taken from. Mr. Kulik said that it was taken from the terrace from a seated position. Jim Wickett said that when they appeared in December they had not yet been invited inside the property. Since then they had been able to go inside twice and have had numerous meetings with the applicant and his architect. He said that residents of Mar East live in very tight quarters and the remodel of any of the properties runs the risk of being at the expense of the neighbors. He said that allowing expansion beyond the building envelope also runs the risk of setting a precedent. He said that the houses on the street were built in order to protect neighboring views and privacy and they were depending on the DRB to protect that. He agreed with staff's recommendations and said that the project should either be denied or continued with clear direction to the applicant. He disagreed with the applicant that his house is disadvantaged because of a smaller deck. Mr. Wickett made the following requests: On the southwestern addition he requested that the applicant stay within the building envelope of the existing house and not come out 9 feet closer to his house. He would like to see all new windows facing his house limited to the existing square footage of glass and be tinted privacy glass. He said that he cannot rely on the Acacia tree to provide screening. The new glass door and window facing their home should be moved to face Angel Island and not his house. He said that the design would add three new glass doors on the lower level and they would like those to be solid doors instead of glass to minimize impact on his bedroom. On the back southeast addition, he said that the proposed upper and lower decks and kitchen addition would have a significant impact on his master TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 t Z H L i _ _- 7 5/3/12 bedroom and the proposed screens would not solve the privacy problem. He said that the letter from the previous tenants sums up the situation well and showed that there was already a privacy issue before the proposed addition. He said that any extension of the home toward the water would bring the house closer to his master bedroom and he was therefore opposed to any addition. If necessary, he said that he was willing to continue to work with the applicant and hoped that they could come up with a thoughtful design that respects his needs. Arthur Greenberg said that he lives across the street from the house on the non -water side of Mar East. He was concerned that any type of modification to the house would not impact his view of the bay. Vice - Chair Emberson asked if he can see the story poles. Mr. Greenberg said that he can see the story poles from the walkway of the front of the house. At this point he was uncertain whether the addition would impact his view of the water. He was concerned that the roofline would go closer to the bay and obstruct his view of the water and he also wanted to be sure awnings and privacy screens are not put up that obstruct his view of the water. Jonathan Wu said that residents have chosen to live in Tiburon because of its beauty and have all invested financially in it. He said that story poles that take away views can make a person go crazy, and he empathized with the neighbors' feelings. Mik Flynn said that she lives two doors down from the project. She said that she would not be personally impacted by the project, but entered her neighbors' homes to see how it would affect their property and lifestyle. She completely agreed with staff's recommendations and asked the Board to help everyone be good neighbors. Mr. Wilton said that the letter from the previous tenants was somewhat malicious. He said that he has lived in that property for 4 months and had the architect live in the property for a week to appreciate the issues involved. He said that they had been careful to keep the rooflines at ceiling level to allow sunlight and prevent them from obstructing any views. He added that Christina Hansen, who wrote another letter, was also a tenant. Chair Kricensky said that some of the correspondence addressed an additional issue between the property and ?310 Mar East. Mr. Wilton said that that is a separate issue and relates to the stairs between the properties, and Mr. Kulik has requested that they no longer use those stairs. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that this was one of the most difficult projects the DRB has dealt with in recent memory. He characterized the project as a modest request in a highly sensitive area. He said that there was a fundamental disconnect between what the neighbors and the applicant mean by privacy. He said that this was an extremely thoughtful design that has tried to solve views from every aspect of neighboring properties. He said that he would like to see less literalism in the privacy discussion by the applicant because the new expansion would still affect and be seen by neighboring properties. He said that when neighbors discuss privacy they are thinking about what the house looks like from their properties and where windows are located, but what the neighbors are really concerned about is whether a deck is right outside the master bedroom window, not whether the average American can see over a privacy screen. He said that seeing a house a lot closer to primary living space seems like an invasion of privacy. He said that he could not see using the incidental windows as a justification for preventing a modest expansion. He agreed that the house is disadvantaged, as it is the last one to expand and he was sympathetic to all neighbors and the applicant. He said that some changes were in order, specifically, the screens needed to be increased in height in order to feel more meaningful. He felt that the neighbor's TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 `7's T _ 5/3/1? glazing request toward the southwest exposure was reasonable and he suggested moving toward clerestory windows rather than full height windows. Boardmember Johnson agreed with Boardmember Tollini that this was definitely a difficult project to analyze. He said that the aerial photographs were helpful and showed that it is the last one to make a change. He said that the neighboring properties are of similar lengths and right next to each other. He stated that this is an area where privacy is a very individualized term. He said that if the homeowners were to tear down the house and rebuilt it in the same location there would still be privacy issues. He said that much of the living in this area is outdoors and it is not a private area. At the same time, he said that he understood the neighbors' concerns. He felt that there were still some refinements to be made, but he thought that the project had come a long way from the first meeting. He said that he leaned toward approving the project because he thought that some of the issues were not as severe as represented. Vice -Chair Emberson said that the horizontal privacy screen would be nothing more than "a place to set drinks." She thought that they had made a lot of changes to the project. She said that some of the glass could be reduced on the southwest elevation, and she would feel more comfortable with it if the decks were brought more in line with each other, though she acknowledged that that may make the decks unusable. She said that when one lives on this street one might expect that there will be neighbors looking next door. She said that opaque glass would let light in and be a better solution than using wood. Boardmember Tollini agreed that the horizontal privacy screen would look bizarre and not function to provide privacy for neighbors. Chair Kricensky said that it would provide privacy, and when he stood in the location it did screen the neighbors. Boardmember Tollini acknowledged that it would provide privacy in a literal sense. Vice -Chair Emberson said that she would like to see it go up higher. Chair Kricensky asked staff if most houses in this area are nonconforming in setback, floor area ratio, and lot coverage, and Planning Manager Watrous said yes. Chair Kricensky asked if this property is any more out of the ordinary than most of the houses on the street. Planning Manager Watrous said they had not done a survey, but his gut feeling is that it is not any more inconsistent with zoning requirements than others in the area. Chair Kricensky agreed that thus project is extremely difficult. He said that all of the houses in the area have two decks and look at each other, and that is the nature of this type of development. He said that he could understand why the owner would like to have a deck to enjoy the nice weather. He thought that the addition would be modest, but felt that it would impact the neighbors and he struggled with whether the impact would be too much. He pointed out that from the living room the owner would sacrifice some of his view to solve the neighbors' privacy problem. He said that there was quite a bit of glass on the entry side that could be reduced to reduce light pollution. Chair Kricensky said that it sounded like the only design acceptable to the neighbors was to not build out past the existing building envelope. Vice -Chair Emberson suggested moving back the upper deck as a possible solution. Boardmember Tollini said that it would not be usable if the deck were reduced in size. Planning Manager Watrous said the kitchen is currently very small, and he suggested that the house does not need to be a four bedroom home if it is a retirement home, and the other bedroom could free up the space to reconfigure the interior. Vice -Chair Emberson suggested letting the house expand out but reduce the deck by a few feet. Boardmember Tollini said that that would solve the issue he was most concerned about from 2310 Mar East, but there would still be screening issues for 2306 Mar East. He said that bringing the deck back would make it smaller, and Vice -Chair Emberson said that the outdoor space is cold and foggy and may TMURON D.R.S. MINUTES #6 bra � TO � 9 5/3/12 not be used as much anyway. Vice -Chair Emberson felt that this was a minor reconfiguration that could be done inside in order to bring the deck in. She said that they would still have incredible views and neighbors would not be happy, but it would bring the homes more in line. She recognized that there was no way for everyone to be happy with the project. Boardmember Tollini said that he was not comfortable categorically saying that they cannot move beyond the building envelope, adding that this would be a mutual sacrifice situation. He described one proposal for the deck to bring it in line with the lower deck, and the other proposal to leave it as is but add a vertical screen that would come up to the railing. He said that this would help more with literal privacy and he felt that one of these options needed to happen. Vice -Chair Emberson said that she did not think anyone could expect their deck in this area to be private space. She said that she would push for a slight reconfiguration of the upstairs and push back the deck. Boardmember Johnson recommended reducing the deck without the reconfiguration because it could open up a much larger construction project. Chair Kricensky said that he was unsure that the deck would be usable at that size. Planning Manager Watrous pointed out that one of the advantages of a smaller deck is that it would allow the owner to maintain the property. If it was a less usable outdoor space, then there would be less opportunity for people to be outside on it invading privacy. Boardmember Johnson summarized the changes the Board was requesting: Move back the deck on the upper the level so it is in line with the kitchen, reduce glazing at the entry, eliminate the horizontal shelf and raise the lower level deck screen. He suggested a slatted system for the upper deck that would allow the view through but also create privacy for the neighboring master bedroom. Boardmember Tollini said that he did not see the project as a view issue. Boardmember Johnson said that the views are not from primary spaces and pointed out that one was from a closet. He also said that when people are in the bedroom sleeping the curtains are going to be drawn. Chair Kricensky said that this project would actually create more privacy for 2310 Mar East, and the other Boardmembers agreed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to continue 2308 Mar East Street to the June 7, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4 -0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #5 OF THE 4/19/12 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Tollini requested the following changes: Page 4, paragraph 10, line 5: "...and a flat structure' should be revised to "...and a flat site'. Page 7, paragraph 2, line 1: "...house >'" should be corrected to `'...house." Page 9, last paragraph, last line: " ...not include many windows... "' should be revised to "not many windows in the Qables... "' Chair Kricensky requested the following change: Page 10, paragraph 2, line 3: "He said that the front addition would elevate the house since it would be a two -story element in an area of one -story houses and the gable would accentuate the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 Nr� 1x to 10 7 5!3/12 The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Johnson commended the applicant for addressing the feedback provided by the Board and neighbors. He said that he did not see a view or privacy issues from 450 Ridge Road after visiting the site that day. He said that some of the images with the house superimposed on the site were slightly misleading, and that adding vegetation and the fence would help a great deal. He thought that perhaps raising the sill heights for the furthermost windows along that side might help. He said because of the Zn sensitivity of this project he drove around the entire neighborhood, which he characterized as not a wooded environment and an area where one tends to see parts of other houses because of the topography. He said that this project had gone a long way to preserve privacy for 430 Ridge Road. He said that the house fit into the scale of the property and the neighborhood. He supported a 6 foot fence between 430 and 440 Ridge Road and felt that that would more than adequately screen the area with the planned plantings. He said that there would be some visibility from the new house but because of the angle one would look right past the patio toward the view. Vice -Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Johnson and pointed out that there was no solution that would make everyone happy. She said that it is an unusual expectation to not see any other houses. However, she felt that a 7 foot 8 inch fence was a good faith effort that would good a long way. She added that once vegetation is planted there the screening would go over that height. She pointed out that people will be unlikely to congregate in the location of the fence. She said that the view of the house from 450 Ridge Road would be blocked by the pittosporum hedge. She said that she could easily make the findings for the requested variances and the floor area exception and agreed with staff s findings. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers and stated that the applicant had done a lot to bring the house back and address the issues brought up at the last meeting. He said that Tiburon is not "out in the country" and houses are going to be built nearby. He was amazed that an architect would design a house to capture a view knowing that neighboring houses would be built. He supported the 7 foot 8 inch fence and stated that Mr. Garay has the opportunity to plant something that would grow above it. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 440 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3 -0. 2. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21207; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches of the left side property line, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R -2 zone. The additions would cover 7 1. 1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 271 -03. This application was previously reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 1, 2011. During the meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street spoke in opposition to the project, noting potential privacy, view, and lighting impacts. The Board also voiced similar concerns, and encouraged the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be substantial to both neighbors. The Board struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 4 617/1.. - requested, and continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors on both modifications and an adequate compromise, in order to move forward. The Board reviewed the new application at the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, at which time several modifications were made to the project between the December and the May 3rd meeting, in order to respond to both the Board and the neighbor's concerns. At the May 3Td meeting, several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project, including the owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The neighbors noted remaining concerns regarding the amount of glazing and lighting impacts, in addition to privacy, noise and view infringements. Overall, the Board was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, and agreed that more could be done to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts for 2306 Mar East, but ultimately felt that the project, as designed, would improve privacy for 2310 Mar East. Regardless, the Board provided further direction to the applicant to modify the project, which included pulling the upper level deck back to align with the proposed lower level deck, reduce the amount of glazing at the entry area, and eliminate the horizontal screening system on the upper level deck and replace it with a vertical screening system. The Board continued the project and directed the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and consider the design modifications provided. Mohammed Sadrieh, architect described the changes to the project. He said that the size of the downstairs deck had been reduced and will now function more like a balcony than a deck. He said that they also reduced the amount of glass facing 2306 Mar East, which would have the same amount of glass as the existing upper floor. He said that the lower deck glass screen had been raised to 6 feet and the screen facing 2306 Mar East had been changed from a horizontal shelf to a screen. He said that the screen would start at the base of the deck and will extend out 5 feet. He said that one option would be to have two sails and provide a soft an organic feel, and another option would be to have aluminum louvers. He said that a vertical screen that would extend up to 5 or 6 feet, whether louvered or solid, would destroy views of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge from the deck and from all vantage points from the upper floor. He said that the currently proposed screen would provide greater privacy than currently exists. Peter Wilton, owner, said that the main issues were the size of deck, privacy screen, and amount of glazing on southwest elevation. He said that they had addressed all of those concerns with changes to the project. He said that they reduced the top deck to 113.8 square feet, a 58% reduction; eliminated the lower side deck; and reduced the lower deck to 280 square feet, which would be more like a balcony than a deck. He mentioned that his neighbor added a 770 square foot deck, and the one he was proposing was very modest. He stated that privacy would actually deteriorate if the deck was pulled back. He presented photos of the existing view of 2306 Mar East from the deck and superimposed images of the louvered or sail shade privacy screen. He said that sail screens are attractive and are built to withstand winds of 80 miles an hour. He showed a view of 2306 Mar East with the privacy screen as viewed from the kitchen and said that it would provide total privacy. He said that they reduced the window in the kitchen by 40% to provide more privacy, and reduced the sizes of windows on the southwest elevation to the existing area of the glazing on that elevation. He said that light intrusion on the neighbors from these windows would be very unlikely. He said that they tried to think about this very creatively and showed renderings of the neighboring property with alternative privacy screen solutions. He said they have proposed to pay for a screen of their bedroom of their design, and so far those offers have been declined by the neighbors. He described the existing structure as very old and dilapidated and said that they are going to greatly improve the property which will benefit the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 617112 EN.,�--HIBTT INT01-4 Magdalena Yesil said that the Design Review Board previously suggested clerestory windows in the entry to reduce the lighting infringement to their courtyard and their second bedroom. She said that the lower level sliding glass door should be converted to a solid door to reduce lighting infringement to her property. She said there are two existing decks at the lower level totaling about 400 square feet that are completely functional. She questioned why the applicants could not take advantage of the existing decks instead of filling in the existing deck. She characterized the houses on Mar East as bungalows on the water with small bedrooms and baths. She said that her house has 3 bedrooms and they share 1 shower. She said that allowing a design with 4 large bedrooms and 4 large bathrooms would create an exception. She asked that the lower level deck be eliminated, and felt that the proposed privacy screens would do nothing for the noise and light pollution. She believed that alternative locations for the deck exist that would not infringe on their privacy and bedrooms. David Kulik said that what was being proposed was illegal according to the laws published by the Town. He pointed out a gate was proposed on his property and requested it be removed from the project. He said that they would have to close their curtains further to protect their privacy. He said that the kitchen would be 8 feet from his master bedroom and said the smells and sounds would affect the lifestyle of his home. He said that a wall would be turned into an open air deck which would be 8 feet from his living room window and they would be able to hear every conversation on each other's property. He said that 2308 Mar East is a nonconforming structure and he read parts of the municipal code stating that nonconforming units cannot be increased in size or altered in ways that are detrimental to the public welfare. He said that they agree with the staff report that there is insufficient evidence to support findings for the variances requested. He requested the Boardmembers state specific findings for each variance. Mik Flynn said that she thought that it was very easy to think the applicant was being fair, but she thought that it was forgotten that they were starting from a completely unreasonable position. She felt that there ware a lot more negatives than positives for the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood regarding this proj ect. Mr. Wilton stated that what they were asking for was very minimal relative to the changes made at 2306 Mar East just two years ago. He considered the light pollution to be very minimal. He said that they had tried to negotiate with 2306 Mar East many times and he hoped for some stability in their discussions. He stated that any legal issues would be determined more appropriately outside the forum. He said that Mr. Kulik knew that the shared easement had been acquired by the previous owner. Mr. Sadrieh said that the Board should keep in mind that all properties on that waterfront are probably nonconforming, and to make a decision solely based on that issue would condemn all future development in the area to what is already built. He said that since this application was so modest he thought that it would place a procedural straightjacket on anyone who wanted to do any development on that street. Boardmember Johnson asked if most of the houses are nonconforming. Planning Manager Watrous said that most of the houses on Mar East are nonconforming to some extent. Vice -Chair Emberson asked how many other homes in the area have asked for variances, and Planning Manager Watrous answered that quite a few because it is difficult to expand a home in that area without requesting a variance. The public hearing was closed. Vice -Chair Emberson thought that a "cookie cutter"' zoning has imposed on a neighborhood that is intrinsically very special. She said that most lots in the area seem huge but only a part of the lot can be built upon, which causes most of the houses to have floor area exceptions. She said that she could make the findings for the variances and exception. She pointed out that next door there is a 1,000 foot deck and she thought that not many people would go out on the 5 foot deck to create a problem. S�he� said that the V "r BT Nov TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6 6/7/12 sliding glass doors at the bottom look onto a fence and would not be injurious to the neighbor. She believed that there is a tradeoff when someone chooses to live in this environment. She said that the project would be a change for everybody and that is why everyone is upset by the project. She said that telling an applicant that is at a disadvantage because it is pulled back so far that they cannot expand is a practical difficulty. She said that the request would not grant a special privilege because every other home in the area has been granted a variance. Boardmember Johnson agreed with Vice -Chair Emberson that the findings can be made. He said that the applicant listened and had significantly reduced the size of the deck and was not significantly changing the character of the building. He thought that this was a very challeilo ing site He was troubled by the nature of some of the comments and he did not think that this property should be "punished" because it was the last to be expanded. He loved the concept of the sail privacy screen but he would not do it at this location. He thought that the louvered privacy screen would work but was unsure whether the louvers should be angled or vertical and suggested that was something the applicant could finalize with staff. Vice -Chair Emberson asked Ms. Yesil if she was interested in the privacy screens suggested for her home. Ms. Yesil said she likes to watch the sun rise over Berkeley and the screens would eliminate that view. Chair Kricensky said that the blanket zoning of the area caused the houses to become non - conforming. He said that the houses on either side have improvements with very large decks. He said that the 5 foot deck would be like a balcony and would not involve loud parties, and the screen would completely eliminate the view of the bedroom next door. He said that he could support the project because of all of the changes they had made and he thought that they should have the ability to improve their property. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board had adequately discussed the finding that the change in privacy would not be injurious to the surrounding properties. He said that he would like to hear more discussion on the finding for practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Vice -Chair Emberson said that the "cookie cutter" R -2 zoning works when one is in a landlocked situation but does not work in this neighborhood because everything is nonconforming. She said that the proposal was modest because of the size of the house. She said that every house around it has decks and she thought that it would be a hardship not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water when all of the neighbors enjoy such decks. She said that the only direction to expand on the site was seaward. She said that the project would not be injurious to the other properties but would instead enhance their privacy, and stated that residents in this neighborhood live in a very open environment that would not be made worse by this project. Chair Kricensky said that there are many houses that have been improved and expanded. He stated that this house is smaller than the neighboring houses and the request is small. He said that the hardship was that they would not be able to expand their house when others in the neighborhood have done so. Boardmember Johnson said that the hardship and practical difficulty was that the zoning does not fit the site. He stated that in other communities such as Newport Beach you are allowed to build 50 -60% lot coverage because a large portion of the property is over water. ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Emberson) that the request for 2308 Mar East Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition of approval that the louvered design of the privacy screens will be reviewed and approved by Planning staff. Vote: 3 -0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 617112 7 endorsement. Mr. Swanson said that a lot of time and money had been spent to date on building new retaining walls and a swimming pool. He said that this work included cutting back the slope and removal of walls which would also improve the sight line at the corner. Swanson said that he had relied upon prior approvals from the Town to proceed; he said it would be difficult and that he did not have authorization to change his course of action now. He reiterated that his clients think the re- oriented stairs are in the best interest of the Town, as well. Mayor Fraser asked if there was any public comment on the matter. There was none. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he supported the application, as submitted. He said that he lived in the neighborhood above the property in question and passed the home on took Centro West. O'Donnell agreed that it was a narrow street with a difficult corner; he said that although the encroachment was a taking of a public space, there were no good alternatives, and it was a significant improvement for both the property owner and the Town. Councilmember Collins said that he, too, supported the application and that it would make the area safer than before. Councilmember Doyle concurred with his colleagues. MOTION: To approve encroachment permit #12 -75 for installation of a staircase in the public ROW at 1877 Centro West Street, as presented. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1 Blackfield Drive — Consider appeal of Design Review Board decision to approve a request for site plan and architectural review to construct exterior alterations to an existing commercial building (Planning Manager Watrous) Applicants: Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Markets; Nadel Architects Appellants: Darren Wein, Jennifer Rasmussen, Lynde Selden, Kyle and Ann Mary Belek, Murray and Tiffany Dunn AP No. 034- 212 -18 --Application withdrawn on August 15, 2012. 2. 2308 Mar East Street — Consider appeal of Design Review Board decision to approve a request for site plan and architectural review to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception (Associate Planner Tyler) Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 5 ) . -- Applicant: Dr. Peter Wilton Appellants: Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, David and Kathryn Kulik AP No. 059- 195 -01 Staff presented the report detailing the history of the project and described the appeals procedure. Councilmember Fredericks asked for clarification regarding the problem identified in determining lot size and floor area ratios (FARs) for some of the lots because of the mean high tide. Ms. Tyler stated that in order to determine the lot coverage and FARs for the properties that are on the waterfront, the amount of dry land must be determined using the mean high tide line. Generally, BCDC can help determine where this mean high tide line is. Councilmember Fredericks said she reviewed the data and did not have a sense of whether the applicant's lot is smaller or larger than the other two. She asked if there was any information about this at all or would it only be available if one has the mean high tide boundaries. Mr. Watrous replied that the Town only has the mean high tide boundaries in the calculations for the dry land area for lots that have submitted applications within the last 20 -30 years. The Mayor had asked for additional information on this and staff found 6 parcels out of 29 parcels with information on them, not including the ones on either side. He added that the Town has not been given the lot line information in connection with detailed maps to make those calculations. This is not something they normally do until somebody applies for an application for the property and, at that time they ask the applicants to provide this information. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the proposed kitchen is within the appropriate setback or is the variance on the setback to accommodate the kitchen structure. Ms. Tyler replied that the variance is for the kitchen addition expansion because it intrudes into the side yard setback. She explained that when the project was initially submitted, the applicants had requested two side yard setback variances, but upon revisions, they eliminated the west side yard setback variance. She said that the only one that was approved was for the eastern side adjacent to 2310 Mar East. Councilmember Fredericks questioned the basis of the finding that the privacy was improved for 2310 Mar East. Ms. Tyler noted it had to do with how the expansion of the kitchen's projection out would actually block certain windows now viewed from 2310 Mar East Street. Councilmember Fredericks further confirmed it was a combination of the fact that there was a window in the solid wall and how the windows were placed in the kitchen. She stated when there is a lot which has various forms of non- conformity that comes in on an application, she asked if there is any particular policy for curing non - conformity, and Ms. Tyler stated "no." Vice Mayor O'Donnell noted that along Mar East, some properties have a deck that extends out into the Marine zone of the property. He asked if this portion of the deck was counted towards the FAR within the property. Mr. Watrous replied that an open deck would not count towards FAR whether it is on dry land or not. It does count toward lot coverage; however, the Town's zoning allows decks to extend into the marine zone but does not allow floor area to necessarily extend into the Marine zone. Toivn Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 6 ` TT . Councilmember Collins asked Mr. Watrous whether or not 2306 Mar East was a double lot. Councilmember Collins asked when the applicant purchased 2308 Mar East, and Ms. Tyler said she was not sure of the date but the applicant was present and could answer the question. Mayor Fraser said a comment in the staff report states, "The Board articulated findings for both variances but noted that the hardships on the applicant were the standards of the R2 zone." When he was on the Planning Commission he remembered they talked about zoning and, in some instances, they would make a recommendation for a change to the zoning ordinance and he asked what the process is for the Council to address or zoning issues through such changes. Mr. Watrous said this would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which requires hearings before the Planning Commission and Town Council and adoption by ordinance. He said they have had this discussion in workshops regarding other zones. The one that often arises is the RO- 2 zone which has 15% lot coverage, and they end up approving many variances for this. In that case, the Council has discussed on a number of occasions whether to change that ordinance to better fit the neighborhood and has chosen not to. He added that there has not been a global discussion on the R -2 zone. Mayor Fraser asked and confimned that the Council has not had discussion with regard to the R -2 zone or as it relates to Mar East and as it relates in terms of looking at the zoning there in recent times. Vice Mayor O'Donnell added that they have not held this discussion for most of Tiburon for that matter and he said as Councilmember Fredericks stated the flavor of each property is unique. Mayor Fraser asked for the appellant's presentation. Magdalena Yesil, Appellant, said she is here with her husband, Jim Wickett and her son, Justin Wickett. They own and live in 2306 Mar East. She said they are here because after numerous visits, the Planning staff could not make the finding for variances for 2308 Mar East, yet the DRB could. They are appealing the decision because they believe what the Planning staff said, as she quoted; "There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested specifically for physical hardship and injurious to neighboring properties." She asked how the DRB made the findings that Planning staff could not. Regarding physical hardship, they already heard from Ms. Tyler that the way the DRB made this finding is that the hardship and practical difficulty is that zoning does not fit the site. She said in other communities like Newport Beach, one is allowed to build 50 % -60% lot coverage. The question as to what lot coverage currently this house has, according to the application it actually currently has 69% lot coverage. Even if it were in Newport Beach, it would be above the lot coverage required. On the variance finding that the project would not be injurious to other properties, the Boardmembers made this finding by saying the 5 foot balconies in the back would not be party decks and the project, in general, would not be injurious to neighboring homes. This decision was reached with three of the five members present. Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 7 -'MI BTT NO. Ms. Yesil said one reason they bought their home was because it was a wide lot. They knew it would provide them with more frontage and it already had an existing pier and dock which was in fairly bad shape. They bought this home about 5 years ago and did a retrofit as approved as a conditional use permit in 2008. Unlike the applicant's letter which indicated they added 770 feet, they actually added 703 feet, but this did not require a variance. She also pointed out that the screening between the two homes at the water level is very difficult. She provided a picture showing the proximity of the two homes to each other and said they are quite close in one area which she showed as the view into the master bedroom. Regarding two issues of hardship, Ms. Yesil said Vice Chair Emberson of the DRB said that to live on the water and not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water is a hardship. In fact, today the home at 2308 Mar East has two decks totaling about 400 square feet at the lower level. The applicant has said the decks do not have sunlight and rear views, but both decks get quite a bit of sun, have furniture and other items on them, and have direct views toward Angel Island. She said the applicant is planning to fill this deck and make it into a fourth bedroom, and then push it out 5'10" and build a new deck downstairs, as well as new deck upstairs. She believes this is exactly the kind of self - induced hardship that the variance process does not allow for. To fill in a deck that already exists and then to say they need another deck is not a hardship argument because the lack of decks does not apply. She also pointed out that the hardship argument that the applicant has put forth on maintaining the rear of his home does not apply. He has said he cannot maintain the rear of his home; therefore, he needs decks at both levels for maintenance. But as the picture shows, during low tide there is plenty of dry beach for external maintenance. Her home was painted about 1.5 years ago and they have no decks, docks or any access on two sides of their home and have no difficulty painting the whole house because they basically timed it and worked with the tides. She displayed a picture of their master bedroom and said today, outside light, sounds, and views from 2308 Mar East are limited in the present condition. Now two decks are being proposed and they do not really know what those two decks will do because they are not architects and cannot visualize it. They were told that the decks with their privacy screens would not be injurious to them. She went and retained an architectural and structural engineering firm and asked them to provide their expert opinion. The firm works as expert witness in cases of this kind, and they are extremely careful in what they say because they must appear in court at times and defend their findings. She asked them to help them visualize whether the two decks would be injurious to her or not from a privacy standpoint. Ms. Yesil then presented a perspective from overhead showing the two homes as they exist and the master bedroom roof (in yellow) and the two decks proposed at the upper and lower level. At the lower level, there is a triangular deck connecting another deck. The two new decks add 5'10" at both levels which add up to about 410 square feet of new deck, bringing 2308 Mar East's outside living space 25% closer to their master bedroom at two different levels. She said the Council may think 5' 10" is not that much, but from a percentage or relative closeness point of view, it brings outside living space with all of its issues 25% closer to their master bedroom at two different levels. The 410 square feet of outside living space means they will hear Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 8 -1 -' 5 conversation. During the DRB hearings they were told that 5 feet decks are not likely to support large parties. They understand this but do not know how one could stipulate that. The bottom line is there does not need to be a loud party to hear what is going on next door because of their proximity. They can hear conversations and laughter, and this is furthermore exacerbated by the fact that there is water, and when calm, sound waves reflect off the water and make the situation worse for them. The injurious situation can be conversation, laughter, an intimate gathering and not necessarily loud parties. She said same as sound waves, light waves also will project out and its reflection off the water will cast into their bedroom. They have no ability to screen with trees or bushes. Regarding the proposed privacy screen which the DRB discussed and approved for the upper deck, she presented a picture from the applicant's packet. She believes that the upper deck was granted based on this privacy screen functioning. She presented a picture of the proposed decks and, while they are not architects, they asked for the expert opinion of architects and engineers to help them understand if the privacy screens would provide privacy for them. They found that someone going out on those decks will be able to see them. The privacy screens do not block direct view into her bedroom, do not eliminate views into their master bedroom and bed, and the permit - granting process has been built on Photoshop images because no one can go out to the decks to confirm that the privacy screens work. Their architects show that the privacy screens deployed do not offer the visual privacy for their bedroom as was discussed. The screens furthermore do nothing to avoid the injurious effects of the two new decks from an acoustic privacy and lighting point of view. Ultimately, the 2308 Mar East additions in the rear provide direct line of sight and injurious effect from an acoustic and lighting point of view. Ms. Yesil said they were told in the hearing that they live in a very open environment and it will not be made worse through these decks, but she questioned whether this is true. If the project is built they have two levels of 5'10" protruding further into their master bedroom. She asked to see what percentage this would be from a penetration point of view, asked that a satellite image of the two homes be taken and that the applicant's architectural plans be overlaid on top of them. They were told that from the closest point of view of the decks they will now have a 60% visual penetration into their master bedroom. This gets worse moving further back on the decks. Tlie closer one is the smaller the angle; the farther one is the wider the angle. She put the two slides side by side for the Council to help make their own decision and asked if the project would be injurious to them or really enhance their privacy. They think not, with all due respect to the DRB members, and they do believe they will be injured from the building of these two decks. She said even in approaching the granting of the variance on a balancing of equities theory which is not the zoning ordinance, this design still does not stand up to the test. When one balances the relative equities of what the applicant is gaining and what is being taken away from them, the applicant complains he is getting merely a modest balcony and hardly even a deck. Yet to get him this, his structure comes 25% closer to their master bedroom within 20 feet, encroaches upon their bedroom privacy, and prevents their ability to sleep in that room since they cannot shield from the conversations and light. They cannot plant trees since it is water and rock between them and the applicant's words "the modest gain he will receive" does not balance the very major detrimental impact to the quality of their daily lives, their ability to sleep, their loss of privacy Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 9 r- KIKIHIBIT NO. and the loss of property value they will experience. Ms. Yesil then discussed the second bedroom in the rear (highlighted in yellow), presented the layout and said with the new plans the southwest area of the home gets 4' closer to them. Today they have two outdoor areas in the southwest elevation —the entry walkway and the lower deck. If the project is built, they will have four additional outdoor areas right by their second bedrooms. So, what is a quiet area today will have significantly more traffic, more light, and it will affect the quality of life in their second bedroom. She presented a picture of what exists today as the second bedroom, windows, an existing fence between the two properties, and she said they do not have the ability to plant a tree, lattice for the fence for the wind to go through, and the privacy tree which screens between the two homes. The applicant's plans will expand through the area; the tree will be taken away because it will most likely not survive, and if the plans are built as is they will have the home 15 feet away from their window, two stories of windows and a new sliding door. The proposed design creates areas of light and activity adjacent to the 2306 Mar East second bedroom. Ms. Yesil said they requested clerestory windows at the entry and stairway. This was discussed at the May 4t1i DRB meeting but it was never incorporated into the plans. The clerestory windows are very important to them because this is the entry into the home as well as the stairway, and most of the time it will be lit which will shine right into their bedroom. They also requested the tree be maintained or replaced which the applicant agreed to but it was never stipulated into the pen-nit. They also asked that the sliding doors be made into solid doors to reduce glazing. Regarding the decks, they believe that the lower deck should not be granted because it is a good example of self - induced hardship. There are already two decks at this level totaling 400 square feet and furthermore, the lower deck is injurious to their privacy to their master bedroom as it is exactly at the same level. They also asked for the DRB to reconsider the upper deck. The upper deck has been granted based on the theoretical function of the privacy screen which does not provide the visual privacy claimed by the applicant nor does it eliminate the injurious acoustical and lighting into their master bedroom. The upper deck is injurious to the privacy of their master bedroom and they also believe it should be eliminated. In closing, they are before the Council because they have asked that 2308 Mar East not be granted. Staff in three different reports said that there appears to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested, specifically for physical hardship and injurious to neighboring properties. In contrast, in granting the variances for 2308 Mar East, the DRB determined that the zoning designation did not fit the site or the Mar East waterfront vicinity in general. She believes this is dangerous precedent for the Town of Tiburon because it creates a lawless environment for the Town. She asked that the Council adopt the staff s recommendation by denying the excess lot coverage variance in light of lack of physical hardship to the applicant and the injurious and detrimental effects of this variance on them and on their property. Councilmember Fredericks asked Ms. Yesil to clarify the shortcomings are of the screen on their patio, as when she visited the site it was not in good shape. Ms. Yesil said the screen was there when they purchased their home. It is a very thin fence and is very high from their side because Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 10 'Svc °v°a P"1 -ZKH .. O. they are 25 feet lower than 2308 Mar East. She said she cannot grow bushes there but if they could they would prefer more light screening. But because there is not dirt underneath for them to grow bushes in, they are basically limited to whatever the current fence can provide. It is not a perfect fence and light does come through. Light goes in every direction and diffuses out, so they believe even though there is a fence in front of the sliding glass doors, at night when turning on a flashlight in the area, it does light up towards the sky and they can see the light. They originally were not opposed to the house coming out 4 feet towards them and they just ask that changes be made so their life is not as difficult, as they believe it will be if the request is approved. David Kulik, Appellant, said his wife Kathryn and he are the owners of 2310 Mar East and thanked the Council for the time put in preparing to hear this meeting. He has three goals for his presentation —the first is that he wants to demonstrate the injurious impact that these variances have on their property through a PowerPoint presentation. Secondly, there are many legal issues in play and he will ask that his attorney, Mr. Len Rifkind to articulate on those, and finally, they want to show where they think the DRB missed the mark in finding for these variances. Mr. Kulik presented the orientation of the two properties; 2310 and 2308 Mar East. He said what is shown is the result of a fierce battle waged 40 years ago. The final result was set in detail to maximize the privacy in an area that was inherently not private while also minimizing the impact to light and views for all players involved. There is a lot of evidence when going through their home, given the strategically placed windows that look directly down property lines, privacy enhancements, unique cuts that maximize the view from 2308 over to Berkeley. All of this was done with careful consideration of the relative orientation of the two properties and done on purpose. He brought up the concept of absolute versus relative, stating they fully concede that what is being proposed is not that much from an absolute perspective. It is 5' 10 ", and if the properties were separated by 100', less than a 6% relative impact to the separation, it would not be an issue and would be negligible. However, these two properties are separated by 8' and 5'10" represents a 72% impact to the relative separation of the two properties. What it does is create levered and adverse impacts for every change in 2308 Mar East to this carefully constructed scheme of 2310 Mar East. He said he would show the result of variances to the zoning ordinance that were granted by the DRB and he asked the Council to keep one thought in mind as he goes through the slides —he asked that the Council ask itself the question, is 2310 Mar East made better or worse for what is being proposed? The answer to that question is the very basis for their appeal. Mr. Kulik stated at the closest point of approach now from one of the two open -air decks to their property, they have 20 feet of separation, which they accept. The new project, from their perspective, calls for two decks and a kitchen extension, and that separation now from 20' gets reduced to the order of 8' which is a 60% reduction in the separation between an open -air deck and their living room, which has several adverse effects for them. First, in looking at the acoustic issues, from 8' in their living room listening to the deck, they can hear every word that is said. Worse, in the opposite, someone standing on that deck can hear every conversation that occurs in their living room. It changes the way they live in their house. On the upstairs, they would have a kitchen pop -out which has cooking and cleaning sounds at unpredictable hours, Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 11 which is 8' from their master bedroom, which changes a lot of things in their master bedroom. Also, having lived at 2310 Mar East for 4 years now, they know the prevailing wind is right down the line of 2308 Mar East. They use this window for ventilation at night and they open it. They can hear the water and can get a lot of fresh air. Regardless of how good the ventilation system is in the kitchen, they know from experience that every odor emanating from the kitchen will end up in that window. Mr. Kulik pointed to an illustration which represents the visual privacy intrusion range from the new decks into their main living areas. Their master bedroom is upstairs, the main living room is downstairs, and the yellow represents what they have to do with window treatments to maintain their visual privacy in those spaces. He presented a slide that represents a 55 degree intrusion angle into their main living spaces. Admittedly, this is not great, but what the project does is when they move out 5' 10 ", it increases that angle to 80 degrees. This is a 45% increase in the visual penetration into their master bedroom and main living room. From pictures inside their home, they can see the deck 20 feet away from their living room. What will happen with the new project is someone will be 8 feet away from their living room, can literally read the paper over his shoulder as he sits on the couch, and this presents a look down porch directly into their main living space. This forces theirs to use window treatments to guard their privacy. They have a fantastic view of the Golden Gate Bridge and it puts them in a difficult scenario because their choice is to look at the bridge and accept the new privacy intrusion or maintain their privacy and block off the view from their entire living space of the dining, living room and kitchen. He displayed a picture taken from the perspective from his pillow in his bedroom upstairs. He said one can see a silhouette of a person and actually see the tenant renting 2308 now in the picture. Again, they know the scenario is not perfect and inherently not private, but this gets much worse when the upper deck creates a perch of an 80 degree or worse intrusion angle into their bedroom looking directly at him as he sleeps on his pillow. This puts him in the choice again of whether he should cover up 2/3 of the window and block the view from his master bedroom and maintain his privacy or does he sacrifice all that and let somebody look at him while he sleeps. Mr. Kulik then presented before and after views from his dining room table, showing the lower decks that extend out which is the same concept. Someone has the ability to look at him and his only option is to cover the window with a treatment and all the people at his table cannot see the Golden Gate Bridge and to say nothing of the fact that the person is 8 feet away from their table. This is a significant problem and a devastating change to their quality of life because they have no private conversation at their dining room table. He then presented a picture from the perspective of where the upper deck will be and it is taken from the line of the story poles in place now. The red silhouette shows a person standing on the deck, the pillow from where the previous picture was taken, and inverting the silhouettes, he showed the view from the upper deck into their bedroom. The only choice he has is either let somebody watch him in bed or use a treatment and block off views of the bridge. It is the same concept on the lower deck, which he then similarly explained. Admittedly, he said this is not a primary view window but it is tremendously enhancing to the character of the house and it speaks to the meticulous design placed there. It adds a lot of light to the stairs, is a safety enhancing Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Wage 12 K, khl-bl Jn NO feature, and adds character to the room. Looking out the window one can see the Sutro Tower, Angel Island and the water, and he asked the Council to ask the question --Is 2310 Mar East made better or worse by this? Len Rifkind, attorney for the appellant, said he knows the Council understands the concept of findings, but in his view this is the analysis they will have to partake - -to decide whether or not the Council can make findings under the Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16.52.030 (e). There are four findings required by State law to be made in order to determine whether or not the Council can grant what has been requested, namely a side yard setback variance, a lot coverage variance, and a floor area exception. He read verbatim number 3 of the Municipal Code and specifically called out that "self - created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances and a self - created hardship results from actions taken by present or by prior owners of the property that consciously creates very difficult hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance." He noted that staff, in three staff reports in December, May and June all concluded each time that they could not make this finding, which is significant. The reason they could not is that at least with the lot coverage exception, this property is so overbuilt, it exceeds six standards in the R -2 zoning that there is no need to go even further beyond the overbuilding that has already occurred, so staff could not make the finding for that very reason. Staff has said in fact that any application that requests both a lot coverage variance and a floor area exception is by definition an example of fundamental overbuilding, and this is what this application is requesting. Regarding the side yard setback on the east side, Mr. Rifkind said it is down to 6 ", but this was created 40 years ago and the language right in the ordinance states that a "self- created hardship, whether by present or prior owners..." Therefore, when 40 years ago a lot line adjustment was determined between the two properties, it unfortunately affected 2308 with the situation it is finding today. The reason the lot line adjustment was created was so the owner who owned both 2308 and the lot would be able to build what is now 2310 Mar East. Mr. Rifkind also pointed out the second finding that the Council must make is the idea that it cannot be injurious to the neighbors' property. He thinks the picture says this and tells the story. It seems abundantly clear that the Kulik family's privacy, views, and sunlight are all significantly impacted by the proposed project as it is designed. Regarding the findings, he stated the California Supreme Court in 1974 had a case called "Topanga" and one of the lines he loves about the decision says, "a finding bridges the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the agency's ultimate decision." The raw evidence here is the two decks seen in the kitchen pop out. The ultimate decision is whether this Council decides whether or not to grant these variances. What the finding is going to bridge is the gap between the two decks and the decision whether to grant or not grant the variances. It seems there is enough evidence presented that the Council cannot make those findings. It is clear that for the injurious aspect, the Council has heard from Mr. Kulik that there is a levered and adverse impact, which the pictures show. In terms of the hardship, when the house already exceeds every aspect of the zoning standards, the resolution would be there is nothing stopping the applicant from Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 13 building within the existing footprint. They could have the same decks and kitchen albeit the house is slightly smaller at 2,600 feet. They want 2,900 feet, so they could still build all the same design within those 2,600 feet there, and this is what they are suggesting the Council go. Another point raised and staff talked about it is the idea of non - conforming use and non- conforming structure, and the zoning ordinance, Section 16.62.030 addresses both. Regarding the structure part, they are not changing the use but the whole point of having a non - conforming ordinance is the goal of any zoning ordinance is so that all the structures and uses actually conform and comply. The goal is not to have a structure that will go beyond what is permitted by the standards, and that is what unfortunately this application does and contrary to what provision Section 16.62.030(b) says, which he read into the record. Usually an applicant will ask for a variance in order to get around it, and they have indicated and shown clearly is that the Council cannot make those findings. Lastly, from a policy standpoint and from the concept of precedence, Mr. Rifkind stated he thinks every Council thinks about that, if the Council decides to grant this application because the applicant thinks it is modest and only 5' 10" and the DRB said it was not a big deal; that they are only increasing the square footage by 10 %, the facts are that they are moving from 20 feet to 8 feet. The applicant says that all homes in the Mar East neighborhood are non - conforming. This is a sweeping statement but there is no evidence that is actually true. He does not know if anybody really knows this. The applicant has said that all homes in the Mar East neighborhood have variances, but 2310 does not, 2332 does not and 2248 does have one but it has specific findings stating it was not injurious to any adjoining properties. If this is granted, the Council will have the potential for every home in Mar East to be able to come forward and point to 2308 as an example and neighbors will oppose this. If the Council stands up for the zoning ordinance and does not grant this, the Mayor suggested doing a zoning change which he said is not before the Council tonight, and he would appreciate based upon everything heard if the Council would uphold the appeal, deny the application. Mr. Kulik concluded the presentation, stating he spent a lot of time doing some research of a precedent setting case on Mar East that would show all elements in play here - -an application, variance, neighborhood opposition, Town opposition and ultimately an appeal. He found the most applicable case and this is his house; 2310 Mar East. Forty years ago a man owned a vacant lot and wanted to construct a residential structure. He submitted plans to the Town that called for a variance. On seeing these plans, neighbors were opposed and the Town encouraged the applicant to redraw his plans. He did so, resubmitted the plans for a structure that had zero variance to the zoning ordinance, and this structure is his house. He thinks it is precedent setting that in asking for a variance not just in Tiburon or not just on Mar East Street, but in this specific locale, there is a precedent that if you ask for a variance you cannot injure somebody else. Obviously, putting up a structure on a vacant lot would be injurious and the neighborhood and the town made it happen, so that wouldn't go forward. Now what the Council sees is a structure that is completely compliant and required no variances to be built. With no disrespect to the DRB, when things are granted through variance and justification is used, attention must be called to it if it is disagreed to. Town Council Minutes #IFS -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 14 1 & BTT NO, Mr. Kulik stated that a Boardmember said the screen would completely eliminate the view of the bedroom next door. He was referencing 2306. He knew it was a problem from looking at a deck through a bedroom and said the screen that has gotten so much air time through debates would solve that problem. What that Boardmember did not address was this situation; he worried about the screen at 2306 but never mentioned the situation in his finding for both variances. Another Boardmember said the project would not be injurious to other properties but instead would enhance their privacy. With all due respect, Mr. Kulik said they are not familiar with the chain of logic that would allow somebody to conclude that this does not injure their property. Finally, a third Boardmember states that the hardship and practical difficulty was that the zoning does not fit the site. This is an opinion and it is fine, but to find for a variance that injures their property is not appropriate. In other communities like Newport Beach are allowed to build 50 % -60% lot coverage, but this is Tiburon and we should not be modeling our zoning after them. To grant a lot coverage variance without mentioning the injurious effects or lack thereof to his property is something he cannot agree with. Mr. Kulik said his goals are that he wanted to demonstrate the injury this has to his property, his attorney talked about the legal points, and he wanted to say why they disagree with what the DRB said in finding for the variances. Staff, over the course of the past seven months, has been completely professional and he appreciates this. Mayor Fraser asked for any clarifying questions from Councilmembers, and there were none. He asked the applicant to come forward for his presentation. Dr. Peter Wilton, Applicant, said he appreciates the Council's time to come out and look at the property. He began by agreeing that the findings were made unanimously. There was mention there were only 3 members of the DRB present which is correct, although there are plenty of comments from the fourth member who was present at the two previous hearings. In the minutes, he was equally supportive. He said that the question was whether the DRB act appropriately and he believes this requires them to look at these issues; 1) the nature of the review process and was it fair and meaningful; 2) what is the nature of prevailing development along Mar East; 3) what is the scope of the proposed work; and 4) what have they done in response to concerns of the neighbors. In looking at these individually, the review process involved three meetings with the DRB. It involved very extensive direct engagement with the neighbors and they even retained an independent party to try and resolve the issue and take further input to try and address the needs of neighbors. The outcome of that was different depending upon who you are talking to. Mr. and Mrs. Kulik purchased the home at 2310 Mar East in December and before they purchased, they were well aware of their plans. They actually had story poles up for the original proposal that were three times larger than what they ended up with. The Kuliks made the decision to purchase anyway. Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 15 1171 BTT NO. Dr. Wilton said that they engaged the Kulik's even before they purchased, tried to get their input, the result of which has continued and has been neither collaborative nor compromising. Mr. Kulik has basically said the only thing that is acceptable to him is to stay within the envelope and that he was wasting their time and money putting story poles up and doing anything else. Dr. Wilton characterized discussions with 2306 Mar East as collaborative but not compromising. There has been a lot of compromise made but so far it has all been unilateral. He said they even tried to reach out to the Wickett's one week ago suggesting further discussions. The result was an approach of "give us everything we want and we will drop our appeal." So, unfortunately, that process has not been that productive, but it has been active. Regarding prevailing development, Dr. Wilton believed the properties are all unique on Mar East which is why precedent does not apply because everything is so different in each case. This particular property is highly compromised for many reasons. The first two involve the setback from other properties along Mar East and the setback from two immediate neighbors. He displayed an exhibit showing the setback line to the edge of the prevailing development along Mar East and said that no other property is set as far back than this particular property. The next reason they feel it is compromised is because of the lack of an upper and lower deck which is open and unobstructed. Every other house along Mar East has a multi -level exterior deck with unobstructed views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the rest of the Bay. The one exception is the Wickett's house, which has a single level deck. He showed photos of decks at 2310, 2312 and 2306 Mar East. Their original request for decks was approximately 700 square feet and in light of what happened with the Wickett's house two years ago, they do not believe they are asking for the world, but rather something quite similar. Today, they are requesting a deck of only 280 square feet. Dr. Wilton said that other properties along Mar East are all basically tiered, meaning the lower deck extends out further than the upper deck. Their proposal is not to do this but have the decks in line which denies them a lot of light and sun on the lower deck. He said they have a partial view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the lower deck, but there will be a privacy screen and that view will no longer be possible. They do not have a dock and would like access to the water. They originally included a dock in the plan, but removed it because of objections from neighbors and the desire for more privacy. The Wickett's have a dock so the fact that they are not able to do this is further hardship. Dr. Wilton said that the lack of maintenance is a serious issue for them. He presented a picture of the property at low tide on the water's edge. When they bought their house in March of 2011 they found leaks everywhere. He pointed to areas which are rotted and the only way they could access it is having somebody in a sling go over the roof. The other main purpose of these decks is to give access to maintaining the waterfront side of the property. They found holes all along the area because the property had never been maintained because of the fact that nobody can get to it. So the house is deteriorating and needs to be upgraded. Dr. Wilton said that the Council heard reference to a lot line adjustment, and he showed plans showing the locations of 2310 and 2306 Mar East. He said that in 1971 the owner decided to .Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 16 N build the house at 2310 Mar East and its original location was right on the boundary line with a zero variance. Mr. Kulik asserted that his house was built with no variances, which is correct, but only because the owner moved the lot line. This immediately created a substandard side yard for his property and in addition, it took a large portion of available dry land from their original plot. They feel this is a very significant issue that has brought him here today, and this is why they have a side yard setback variance request. He said that the Town transferred the variance granted to 2310 to them by precedent, so, they are asking for a continuation of that side yard setback. Councilmember Fredericks questioned what Dr. Wilton meant by "they transferred the variance." Dr. Wilton said there was a lot of protest about building 2310 Mar East and discussions back and forth between neighbors. Because of the opposition from neighbors, the owner of this property wanted to get away from the variance so he moved the lot line. He said there is a high tide line so that portion of dry land area is gone and taken from him, which again, is why they are before the Council. While it is history, it is context and part of the reason why this property is compromised. Dr. Wilton stated the DRB looked at all of this and concluded there is hardship for this property. in terms of the physical maintenance and because they were being denied the privileges of every other owner along Mar East has, particularly in terms of the open, multi - tiered deck. Regarding the scope of the project, Dr. Wilton said that they have been questioned on their personal motivations for what they are doing. This is their retirement home and would like to grow old there. To do this they need to put what is necessary to live on one level without stairs. They would like single floor access to the kitchen, bath, bedroom, living room and dining room on the top level. It has been proposed to them to take away the roof of the existing structure and stay within the envelope and put the decks there, but to do this and accommodate aging in place would basically be extremely expensive or impractical. They are starting a family and want room for kids. He continues to research and write from home and both have wheelchair -bound dependents that are going to visit. Therefore they do think the plan to have 4 bedrooms is excessive. They are increasing the lot coverage by about 300 square feet, most of which is within the existing envelope. The only actual increase in the envelope is the kitchen pop out at 50 square feet. Everything else is reclaiming the existing footprint of the property. Dr. Wilton said they calculated FAR's on the adjoining properties and looked at the dry land area. His architect, Mr. Sadrieh ran the numbers for lot coverage and floor area and the house is not that far out of line. Councilmember Frederick asked how Mr. Sadrieh determined what the mean high tide line was. Mohammad Sadrieh, architect, stated they are not exact, but are extrapolated from where the mean high tide line is on the property below them. Dr. Wilton agreed it is an estimate but better than nothing. This is why the rest of the lot coverage does not make sense in this area. If he wants to get a low lot coverage number, he can just build on water which is exactly what has happened with 2306 Mar East, and which is why he Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 17 thinks the variances need to be granted. He felt that the calculations are not meaningful in this kind of situation and this is the conclusion the DRB reached. He could get around the lot coverage by putting everything on the water which they have not done, but 2306 Mar East has done. Dr. Wilton presented the square footage they are proposing at 2,900 square feet and he showed other properties along Mar East showing it is not excessive, and he said this is one of the reasons also the DRB reached the conclusion that it was modest. There are complaints about them filling in the lower deck, but the lower deck is covered so it does not get sunlight except for a very brief period of the day on a very small portion of the deck, so they would like to have an uncovered deck. It is actually a porch, but the main issue is getting access to maintenance, and this is why they are asking for the lower deck —to be able to maintain the property just like everybody else along Mar East. Regarding the concerns about privacy and views, deck size and view intrusion, the DRB looked at all things mentioned tonight and they made the comment at the end of the process that it is a very thoughtful design, that they responded appropriately to the issues raised, and they concluded it did not intrude into the primary view spaces. He displayed adjustments made to the original plans on the decks made in May and in June. The original deck was supposed to be 700 square feet and the decks have been reduced to 280 square feet. They are surrounded by a deck of 1,660 square feet, 700 of which was added 2 -3 years ago. The DRB called this a balcony where people are not going to be able to congregate and not a deck. The Council heard a lot of complaints about noise from both neighbors, but in thinking about the ability to congregate outside and create noise, it is easier to do that on the two adjoining properties. Privacy is a two -way street and they are being asked to accept noise into their house but they are not being given the same privilege by their neighbors. Notwithstanding that, they have done a lot of things to give privacy which no other house on Mar East has done. They have extensively used privacy screens to try and address the privacy issue. The DRB concluded that as a result, the house would actually increase privacy and that expectations of total privacy along Mar East are just not reasonable nor are the possible. He displayed where photos were taken from and explained them, stating in the previous presentation this was not shown. They were taken from angles that were very advantageous to the views of their neighbors. Councilmember Fredericks asked how far the viewpoints are from the windows, and Dr. Wilton said it depends on where one stands and said the decks give them even less privacy. He explained one photo was taken from the middle of the dock of 2306 Mar East or 2/3 away from the end of the Wickett's dock. Another was taken from the first boat hook from Mr. Kulik's house or about 40 feet, and he continued displaying various views and explaining what they have done to address the DRB's comments. He noted it is not possible that light can protrude through the timber fence. Dr. Wilton said they had proposed a solution to the Wickett's that will completely solve their Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 18 XII l - I IN privacy problem, have offered to pay for a design of their own choosing that would sit at an angle off of their house and given them total privacy. He presented a view from their bedroom, taken from their own submission on record when they wanted to replace the window. The reason their photos look different is because when they took photos of his home, the Wickett's stood right up against their wall and looked back. However, it would be possible to have a modest screen which would provide them with total privacy while still retaining their views of the east bay and sunrise which they want, but they have not chosen to do that. In looking at all of this, the DRB basically said the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the welfare or injurious to the other property in the vicinity. It is not a perfect solution, but it is modest and reasonable. Dr. Wilton said he thinks the design is good for the community. He presented a picture of what the home looks like today and 3D renderings of what they are proposing, stating there is not significant expansion on the envelope at 55 square feet at the kitchen pop -out, and they believe it will do a great deal to improve the general value of properties and communities along Mar East. Councilmember Doyle said he noticed the use of deck spaces and asked why the option for a dock going out to the water was not considered. Dr. Wilton said because Mr. Wickett and Mrs. Yesil indicated this would go straight past their bedroom window and be even more intrusive of their privacy. They would love to be able to do this, but this is one of the reasons why they think this property is compromised. Councilmember Doyle asked about the tiering with steps going down and Dr. Wilton said this would be great, but in responding to the neighbors and the DRB's suggestions, they pulled the balconies back into the line of the kitchen pop -out. Everybody else along Mar East is sitting outside at a table having a BBQ with friends, and they want to do this, but they have been responsive to the DRB. Mayor Fraser noted Dr. Wilton purchased the house in March of 2011 and he mentioned the many hardships that his house has. He asked if he was aware of this when he purchased the house. Dr. Wilton said what he was not aware of was the deteriorated condition of the house. Mayor Fraser said he was talking more about the physical characteristics noted in the neighborhood, such as decks and the docks that everybody else has. Dr. Wilton said he bought the house as a fixer -upper and bought it with reasonable expectations that he could get approval to do that from the Town for something reasonable and sensible, and it has proven to be one of the most arduous things he has done in his life. He did not feel it should be this difficult to try and improve a property in a responsible way. Mayor Fraser opened the public comment period. Karen Hardesty, real estate broker, said she moved from Newport Beach and has lived in Old Tiburon since 1982. She objected to the reference to Newport Beach because she felt that development took over and ruined the beautiful seaside town. One reason she chose Tiburon was because she was confident this would not happen. Her other concern with the DRB's findings was a disregard for the ordinances as they stand on the books. She suggested they be amended, Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 1 S, 2012 Page 19 said she has sold 4 waterfront properties in Mar East, representing the sellers of 3 and the buyer of one. She was sorry Dr. Wilton was not alerted of the arduous task of getting something through in Tiburon, but the reason is to protect the character of their community. Every buyer she has worked with is notified they must love it the way it is but there are no guarantees. She said there are many houses on Mar East that have less light, less outdoor space and one of the Boardmembers told her that people who live on Mar East '`can't expect privacy." She objects to this. The values of privacy and views on that street are very important, and having represented the 4 properties, she has run across many potential buyers that not only state the views are important, but that privacy is an issue. She said that Marjorie Nevers, who resided in the house at 2308 Mar East for many years, never felt that her privacy was intruded upon by the neighbors on either side. The line of sight was not an issue and her views, light and the outside decks below were wonderful. Regarding the comments about the aging of the property, she noted that the main level does have a bedroom, bath, kitchen, a dining area and living room, and Ms. Nevers lived there happily until she died at the age of 98. David Schwartz said he has lived in Tiburon for decades, sells real estate in Tiburon and he finds it preposterous that somebody would purchase the property without having the proper investigation into looking at what needs to be done. He represented the Kulik's in the purchase of their property. The story poles were up and he suggested the Kulik's go to the Town to get a feel of what can be done. Mr. Schwartz said that staff was reassuring in that they could not support any kind of push out on the building. The property has gorgeous views, is well- located, and the bigger issue is not if you propose modest things it should be approved, but how much will it Kann the neighbors. Views, privacy and light are what the DRB is supposed to uphold the most when they are looking at a project, and in this case, they turned a blind eye. Mik Flynn said they live on the water side and although she had previously said that their home is not affected by what the Wilton's are doing, their home is, in fact, impacted by anyone along Mar East making major changes as they are proposing. When they purchased their home, one thing abundantly clear is that they needed to stay within the footprint of the house. She has been inside the Kulik's house and can say as an owner, the project would make an enormous difference. When putting a deck all alongside a house, it completely impacts everything it is that someone paid for and worked so hard to do. Generally, people along Mar East cannot get outside and clean their windows, but people have to figure it out and take care of it. Rick Barberi said when he looks at this proposal he thinks it is a classic Trojan horse situation. He asked how many times staff has seen proposals that are scaled back 50% to 70% as they go through the process. More importantly, the creation of the artificial hardship for new decks is preposterous. What bothers him, given they all live with privacy issues, they have had a number of similar projects slip through the cracks, like the house two doors down from him. Clearly, when both of the people claiming hardship come forward and show the Council diagrams looking from the balcony of the new decks or the balcony of the new house into their bedrooms, it is interesting to see how the applicant's pictures show you inside the bedroom looking into another bedroom. He hoped that common sense will prevail and the DRB is overruled. Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 .August 15, 2012 Page 20 7 � , � 5 David Salizar said he was asked to attend the meeting by Christina Hansen who is an architect and resident of Tiburon and used to be a tenant at 2310A Mar East. He is an architect and feels this is a complicated situation and he sympathizes with all parties involved. He read a letter from Ms. Hansen into the record. He said given situations like this, he thinks that having everyone appreciate the views and coming to some sort of degree to consensus is an appropriate solution. Muriel Marten said she is the current tenant of 2308 Mar East and is an interior designer who has worked on several large remodel of home throughout Marin, Pacific Heights and in Seacliff in San Francisco where they face the same challenges that this situation does. She believes the improvements are extremely modest and have been made in the spirit of reaching out to the neighbors to embrace whatever ability to keep their privacy maintained as possible. The outdoor space they are adding is very limited and is definitely a balcony and not a deck. The neighbors on both sides have huge decks and docks and this addition is very minor. In terms of needing the outside decks from living there, maintenance cannot be addressed without having some deck space that is uncovered on the lower level in order to improve and maintain the property above. It cannot be done from the rocks down below as it is way too dangerous. Having lived on the property, she is definitely in a fishbowl with no privacy and she looks forward into 2310 Mar East. There is only one window at 2306 Mar East which is set far ahead so she does not see into the bedroom at all, but just one tiny corner of it. The house at 2310 Mar East has the ability to look directly into the entire main living area of 2308 Mar East and she believes that the addition they are proposing adds immense privacy for 2310 Mar East. It makes a solid wall out of an entire wall of panoramic windows that right now look at 2310 Mar East. She is surprised that the neighbors are fighting this so much because it adds such a degree of privacy between the two homes. She knows Mr. Kulik was talking a lot about window treatments and having to cover up the views, but she has lived in the house for 3 months and the entire time, the one bedroom window at 2306 Mar East and 3/ of the windows at 2310 Mar East have had their shades drawn the entire time they have lived there. Right now there is a huge solid wall between the two houses and 2306 Mar East has large skylights at the top of the house which are lit every night and there is already a huge about of light coming from them, so she is very confused about the concerns on lighting between the two properties. She voiced her support for the plans, thinks they are quite modest and appropriate. Mayor Fraser called on DRB Member Kricensky to answer questions of the Council. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked Mr. Kricensky for his opinion of the meeting and how the DRB arrived at their decision. Boardmember Kricensky said they looked at the development occurring along Mar East and the extent to which other homes extend out to the bay and what they enjoy. He said that when any house builds before another one they try to obtain the maximum views they can get. He referred to neighbors claiming views as a "borrowed view." The DRB feels there is a compromise that can happen. He understood the issue of nonconformance caused by zoning, which happens all over Tiburon. The Town has done a relatively good job of keeping their generalized zoning categories over certain areas for consistency, but when there is something like this with so little land area, very narrow lots and a these houses were not built with that zoning. They have often granted variances to allow applicants to build a reasonable home. The staff Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 21 Trp 'O, report stated that if they went by the dry land area and did the setbacks, they could build a 700 square foot home, which is unreasonable. They felt that looking at the development and homes along the waterside and what they got to enjoy, they felt this house could afford to have some decks and not necessarily interfere at all with the neighbor's primary views. They came to the conclusion that the side views were not primary views, but still look into each other's houses. Mayor Fraser called for the appellant rebuttal. Magdalena Yesil said that Christina Hansen was outraged with the project, and then she was retained by Dr. Wilton as a consultant, so it is very unfair to represent her as an independent party. She thanked the tenant as well as Dr. Wilton for saying that the home at 2308 Mar East cannot see into our bedroom now, but if the plans go through, they will and this is the injury they are talking about. There is a significant difference with what exists today and what will happen tomorrow if these proposed plans go through. When they got the approval to build the deck, it was with the cooperation of their two neighbors on either side. They had one neighbor get up and speak on their behalf, they did not intrude on anyone's privacy. Both 2306 and 2308 Mar East were built about the same time and to say one was disadvantaged over the other is wrong. Jim Wickett said until tonight, they never talked about a dock. Dr. Wilton never told him there was a dock and in fact the first time he heard about it was when the DRB mentioned a dock. Dr. Wilton would have to build a pier 300 feet out into the bay. This would be a great weekend house, but not for many children and invalids. David Kulik said they bought their house in December 2011. Until June 2012, the Chainnan of the DRB was never in his house to see this from his perspective. He said 2310 Mar East was built in compliance with the zoning. Not every house in the area has been granted a variance and he never mentioned the injury effect to his house by variance, and this was never considered by the DRB. As it pertains to the buying situation, they were accused of being knowing buyers and aware of the plans which is absolutely correct. Having lived in 2310 Mar East, they knew exactly what the situation was and they knew about the history of the properties and how essentially the development potential of 2308 Mar East was compromised build 2310 Mar East. He and Dr. Wilton had nothing to do with that. When they bought their properties, everybody knew the rules or should have known the rules in what the limitations were on those properties. They did not bring any of this on themselves. They were informed buyers, knew what the situation was, and they are being compromised. The present issue is that it sets up a tremendously dangerous precedent and a business model that says to buy the cheapest house on the street, extract value from your neighbors, improve the property and have a greater rate of return at everyone else's expense. Len Rifkind, attorney, asked the Council to focus on the findings as to whether there is an injury. There are advantageous ways photos can be taken and he agreed their photographs are taken from the vantage point of showing when nearest the closest corner and over the railing. Dr. Wilton's photographs step back from the corner so it looks like there is more privacy. He thinks that if you extend out and look to the east from the deck railing that someone might do on a 5"10" deck or Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 22 T .T rs balcony, you will see more of the house. He said that Christine Hansen was a tenant at 231.0 Mar East and conflicted herself out by her previous letter to the Town stating that any extension to the present building volume at the southeast facade would essentially eliminate privacy to the sleeping and living areas. Paul Smith, attorney for Dr. Wilton, said the three presentations the Council saw are sophisticated, high tech and articulate and make the Council's job both harder and easier; easier because they have a lot of information in photos and visuals and harder because there is some contradictory information. For those who were able to visit Dr. Wilton's house, he asked the Council to use cormnon sense and their eyes. The core of the appeals is privacy. Views might have been an issue early on but through the DRB process, a series of meetings where they methodically reviewed the project and tailored it back every step of the way, the Council is down to one question —Is the privacy impact injurious to the neighbors or is it not? Whenever appellants disagree with the DRB's determination of the findings, you hear a lot about what staff said and the DRB does not always agree with the staff. The Board goes through and methodically reviews the process, facts, visit the site and try to make their own determination of how the facts and circumstances apply on any given property. The Council has heard a lot about precedents, but they have always said these projects do not set precedents. Each decision is based on facts and circumstances of the applications before the Council. In looking at precedents, the Council can go up and down Mar East and see many exceptions and many variances, so there is nothing unusual about the application. It is simply a question of whether or not the DRB made the findings. He referred to specific language in the DRB minutes where they stated and articulated how they made the findings. The record is replete with their determinations of the findings and this is what is before the Council now. He asked to recognize there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DRB 's findings and there is a strong legal position for their decision. Mayor Fraser closed the public comment period and asked for Council comment and deliberation. Councilmember Fredericks said in previous appeals when the Council has talked about "borrowed views" the concept has usually been applied to new construction when a previously built home has used a view from their main living areas across a lot, often a lot where there is only a place to be built that would constrain the view of the existing house. She has never heard it applied to a remodel, and she asked if this is an existing policy. Mr. Watrous stated that the Hillside Guideline that describes borrowed views as she described has to do with a view across an undeveloped piece of property. He thinks there is a broader, somewhat looser interpretation and usage of the term that has been used to describe views across a portion of a lot where a house could reasonably considered to expand, in the same way Boardmember Kricensky described it. Councilmember Collins said that he agreed with Paul Smith that the presentations were terrific, were professional in content, and he commended both the appellant and the applicant for what they had presented. He said that he believed that the DRB tried to accommodate both sides of the issues with a mutually acceptable plan and tried to get people together to do something that Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 23 NO would work for everybody, which is a part of the DRB's role. He said that the Board tried to provide guidance for the project, but that in his opinion the DRB stretched too far to make the findings. He said that he cannot reach the same conclusion that the DRB did. He said that he agreed with what staff repeatedly informed the DRB about the Staff, s inability to make findings 3 and 4. He said that the Town's Municipal Code is clear in its wording that although a non- conforming structure may be altered or remodeled or enlarged, the discrepancy between existing conditions and the zoning standards shall not be increased. He said that residents must be able to rely on what the Town's Municipal Code provides, and on the facts of a given situation, and that that one cannot ask for or be entitled to a variance that changes the facts for those people that rely on the Town's Municipal Code. He said that he thinks the proposed project would affect the important views and the privacy of Mr. Kulik. He said that he thinks that the applicant's house should be redesigned within the footprint of the existing house and not beyond it. He said that the applicant can have decks facing out onto the water, but that the applicant has to decide what the applicant is willing to give up to have those decks, such as, one bedroom less, or shifting the kitchen to somewhere else. Therefore, he said that he cannot support the application. He also has a concern that if the Council does not uphold the appeal, that the Town could be facing meritorious litigation for an abuse of discretion in granting what has been asked for when there is no basis in fact for, nor is there a logical rationale for the making of the last two findings necessary to approve the application. Councilmember Fredericks said zoning is meant to control incompatible uses within a zone. Some of the really fine analysis that has to be done when zoning does not fit an area has to do with why you have zoning to begin with. In this case, if one just looks at the juxtaposition of the three houses and their privacy, views, noise and light conflicts, you have to make very fine decisions. The Mar East neighborhood is an example of the kinds of incompatibilities that are generated by their legacy building before the Town was incorporated and the attempt to make zoning work in a place where the lots are non - conforming, where there are greater potentials for view blockage, smaller setbacks, privacy issues and access issues, and it is a real challenge. The result of that is that when there are remodels, some of the lots do enjoy the privileges of the lots that have already put second stories on, but others do not because their impact on their neighbors is different. So, to make an argument that one is entitled to a certain remodel because you should enjoy every view and every advantage of every lot around you in a neighborhood where the lots and their positions and the siting of the structures are so different is a very hard argument to make, although she really wishes it was something everyone could always be granted. She said she, too, cannot make the findings to grant the variances. She thinks some of the hardships, particularly those generated by the setbacks, were generated by previous owners, as Mr. Rifkind pointed out. In making a finding about the detriment and injury to other properties, she found the most compelling thing was being in the living room of 2310 Mar East and walking from the back of that room to the front of that room while looking up at the applicant's home. As you move forward, you can see more and more of that room. So the amount of view penetration is really specific to where you are in the room and not to isolated areas. Based upon this, she tends to feel there are great privacy and view impacts, even though the protrusion from the wall of the existing applicant's home is relatively small. There are other Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 24 _I T INT e questions of whether the walls of the kitchen really balance the new views, the increased privacy that is offered by them balance the views into both the appellant's homes that is offered by the new upper and lower decks. She thinks the idea of borrowed views is not so important because the actual view detriment looking outboard to the vistas tends to be the most impacted and not the primary views necessarily protected by the Hillside Guidelines and ordinances. But the privacy issue is very compelling and the neighbors always have to make a choice between privacy, light and air and what is more important to them. She thinks this is very injurious. Also, the closeness of the lots and the positions of the dwellings on the lot make a big difference too. Therefore, she cannot make a finding that the proposed remodel is not injurious to the properties around it and she cannot make a finding that any of the hardships claimed were not self - created by the applicant. Councilmember Doyle said he thinks design -wise, there are some elements of the project that can be shifted around. The Council is not here to tell the applicant how to do it, but there are some changes that can make things work. He does not have that big of an issue with that entryway being changed. The kitchen could be pulled over further and make it wider and only go out half that distance. That would solve one of the problems on the second floor of looking into a bedroom and would place that upper balcony farther away from the bedroom of the house to the left. There was talk about tiering that happens in all of the other houses around there, and if a design had been proposed where the upper area was only pulled out just a little bit to extend the kitchen and make it wider and the deck was pulled away from the house to the right it solves one of the problems. The view would not be blocked and people on the upper deck would still be a good distance away. He does not see how the lower deck changes what is happening if there are screens to block views of the house to the other side. He thought they could have a deck that is closer to the water that would take away some of the physical hardships of not having a deck and not being able to enjoy the sun. He thinks there could be design changes made to this that would be positive for both neighbors and the applicant and still have a beautiful home. He agreed with what Councilmembers Fredericks and Collins said about buying the house and knowing what one can and cannot do. The DRB is not here to help somebody make money, but do what is right for the community. If a house can be designed within the guidelines and you make money on it, that is fine, but he does not think it is their job to worry about whether you will not make as much money if you pull the kitchen back two feet. So, he would like to see the project return with some variations and continue the matter. He thinks there is an opportunity to have a deck somewhere closer to the water that goes out, and there is an opportunity not to infringe on the neighbor's privacy. When someone is looking into someone's master bedroom and you are 8 feet away, there has to be a way around that. He does not think they can protect side views for every property. He was surprised at how magnificent the views are from all three houses. The architect designed it well, but in the spirit of compromise with some minor changes, there could be some good results. He would like to see the matter come back with some minor changes. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he was able to visit all three properties that afternoon and meet almost everyone in the chambers. He said it is unfortunate that this has become such a Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 25 a contentious issue and he does support the statement made by Paul Smith that privacy seems to be the number one issue here. If you go through the DRB minutes, Boardmembers Kricensky, Johnson and Tollini talked specifically about that issue. The question is whether the privacy that is lost or gained and how you argue it is an injurious act. On that particular street, you are always going to be dealing with privacy issues. Some people have docks, some do not, you can always turn, pull a shade, and when talking about something that is injurious, you are usually talking about whether someone's primary views are blocked. In this case, there are none that are blocked. Vice Mayor O'Donnell supports Councilmember Doyle's suggestion to continue the project and would like to see if a compromise could be fashioned by the parties. He thinks that the need for a deck at the top level is not as great and since the house is being completely remodeled or restored, if the deck started at the current point of where the house ends now, the property owner is not losing that much space and would gain that tiering effect of a lower deck and upper deck as seen throughout Mar East and would solve the maintenance issue, although he does not see that to be a huge impediment. It would also solve the privacy issue for 2310 Mar East because it would have the same impact they are dealing with today. It would also solve the privacy issue for 2306 Mar East and would remove the screen that hangs off the side of the building. He would allow the property owner to expand on the lower deck and even as the rendering shows, to connect the lower deck to the existing side deck which allows for a larger outdoor enjoyment space. It would be difficult for the other property owners to argue against that because they have huge docks that extend out. He would like to also see some sort of compromise fashioned. He also had an opportunity to spend some time in Ms. Nevers' house. It is a substandard house and it needs renovation. It will improve everyone's property values by having a nice home there and he would like to see things work out, the project continued, and designed in a fashion that Councilmember Doyle and he described as a compromise. Mayor Fraser complimented the applicants and appellants for their passion and persuasion. However, in thinking about this and going back to the fundamentals, he is unable to make the findings that will support an additional variance on top of a non - conforming use that already exists. It is very clear what the code says and he believes the Council should abide by the code. If they are not happy with it and think their zoning or code is incorrect, they should find a way to bring that forward and change it in the proper process. Mar East is an eclectic environment and the Council looks at neighborhood issues, and may adjust the code to be reflective of how the times have changed. Maybe that will be true someday along Mar East, but they are now living with the R -2 zoning and the Municipal Code the way it is. He also is not able to make a finding that the project is not injurious to both 2306 and 2310 Mar East with the extension of the decks as proposed now. Therefore, he cannot support the DRB's decision. He does think that Councilmember Doyle and Vice Mayor O'Donnell have made a good suggestion in terms of coming together for a compromise solution. But he thinks they must work within the existing footprint because outside of it means they have to go against their codes, and he does not think they can make a finding for a property that already has a lot coverage of 67% and approve a further variance, and justify that with any reasonable finding. He also thinks that if they do that, it should be remanded back to the DRB as opposed to having the Council become the design team Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 16, 2012 Page 26 N a for the house. He thanked the appellants, applicants, and participants, and he thinks a compromise should be struck so that the applicant can improve his properly within the existing footprint. Councilmember Fredericks said it seemed to her that Councilmember Doyle's suggestion was outside the existing footprint and she would not preclude some modest non - privacy intrusion. Councilmember Doyle said in looking at all of the houses along there, this house is stuck back and a bit different, but if you bump something out half the distance of 5'10" and make it wider within the interior structure of the house, there is still the same footprint of the kitchen and they are not infringing upon someone's privacy. The owner would get something and the neighbor would get something. He thinks some small alterations will result in something everybody can live with. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he very much believes privacy is a two -way street. He thinks the privacy issue can be mitigated but does not find them injurious. With respect to overcoming the findings when it comes to bumping the house out, they must be fair and remember that the codes and zones were dropped on the neighborhood after the neighborhood was built. This is probably the most difficult street to analyze because of the fact that the property is extended to the water and they must have a little bit of allowance and fairness in making a finding that would bring some harmony between the groups. He would like to see the project continued and remanded to the DRB with the recommendations that the Council developed tonight if the applicant agrees. Town Attorney Danforth clarified that the Council could remand the application back to the DRB if the applicant is willing to make the changes stipulated by Council that would lessen the impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Watrous stated the other option is that if the Council feels it cannot make the findings for the variance they could grant the appeals and deny the project without prejudice with the direction that it can return to the DRB with a new application that addresses the issues in the fashion described by the Council. Town Attorney Danforth said the reason for denying the application without prejudice is because in the normal case, if an application is denied, they cannot return with a similar application for a year. The next question would be if the Council asks them to file a new application, would the Council wish to waive the fees. Mr. Watrous said the Council has done this on occasion. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said Councilmember Doyle's suggestion is for 2.5 feet, but his idea is more restrictive; to leave the edge of the current property at the top level where it is. They could pull the wall back if they wanted to put a deck there. On the lower level, they could come out to the 5'10" which would create a tiering effect and it would solve the major privacy issues on the upper level into the bedrooms of both levels. Mr. Watrous clarified the suggestion to stay within the footprint for the upper level and possibly expand the lower level. Councilmember Fredericks referred to the privacy issue for 2310 Mar East. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said his understanding is there is a much greater privacy issue with the upper deck and bedroom. He felt all the presentations were skewed based upon who was giving them. Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 27 Councilmember Fredericks said she was at the site and saw the lower deck's possible impact even when it is pulled back to the fagade looking back into the bedroom for 2306 Mar East. She thinks if they want people to agree, they cannot reintroduce the same problem. Councilmember Collins said there is already a deck below and they could make a deck above and pull back the wall within the interior of the house. His problem is they would still have the need for variances going outside the existing building footprint. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said building this will violate three ordinances, and asking them to create a lower deck to create a tiering effect he sees as a fair compromise. Councilmember Fredericks said rather than designing it for Mr. Sadrieh and his client, they should take into consideration the discussion they had, the suggestion that Councilmember Doyle made and see if they can come up with something when and if they decide to re- apply. Mayor Fraser said he thinks the issue is variance. Within the existing footprint, he thought that the Council had some agreement. When going outside of the existing footprint is where they have a difference of opinion. Mr. Watrous said in his opinion, if the Council is talking about a project that does not extend beyond the existing footprint of the building, not only would it not necessarily need a variance, it is a substantially different project, which lends itself toward a separate application rather than remanding this application for re- design. Something like that could conceivably be a staff level design review, and would be a different project. If the lower deck is expanded out, it would tri gger a variance, depending on how it is designed and extended out. Councilmember Doyle said it is also the design factor and what it would look like. If they just bump it out a bit, it solves some of the problems on the upper floor and also looks better. When he was looking at the plans, he was thinking of a small bump out that does not affect what the neighbors are seeing and that does not affect privacy that will give the applicant all the same amenities they are looking for without some of the effects on the neighbors. He was looking at a very small front change of about 2.5 feet which should not cause problems while also providing for the architectural detailing. He suggested granting the appeal and having them go back to the DRB. If they designed something that was not injurious to the neighbors, he could support that. Town Attorney Danforth said she is hearing two Councilmembers recommending modest changes and three Councilmembers saying very definitely that they cannot make the findings with respect to this project. However, she has not heard anyone rule out the possibility that with a change along the lines that Councilmember Doyle has outlined, they might be able to make the finding with respect to injury, or the lack thereof. So, if the Council feels that some variance might be tolerable if it was considerably reduced in scope so as to lessen the impact on the neighbors, this could be specified in the resolution. If not, she thinks the best thing is for the resolution to be silent on that point and assume that the applicant has listened and knows the risk if they return with a project that needs a variance. Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 28 Y1711T n�S— - Mayor Fraser supported being silent in the resolution, because he thinks the Council is designing on the fly and the issue is rather dramatic. To respect everybody s input, it would be inappropriate for the Council to make such a decision for any number of feet being acceptable when three Councilmembers agree that they do not believe that a variance makes sense. Councilmember Fredericks said she cannot make the appropriate findings for a variance on what is before them now. She feels they should grant the appeals and deny the application without prejudice and the applicant can return. Mr. Watrous suggested the motion be to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal to deny the project without prejudice. Councilmember Fredericks recommended that fees be waived if the applicant returns with a substantially different application. Mr. Watrous summarized the direction is to assume that the applicant has been paying attention to the deliberations of the Council in terms of direction of what issues need to be addressed in a future application, to which the Council agreed. MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal to deny the project without prejudice and to impose no fees. Moved: Fredericks, seconded O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest — August 3, 2012 • Town Council Weekly Digest — August 10, 2012 There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #16 -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 29 E)XrAHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. 29-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING AN APPEAL BY MAGDALENA YESIL AND JIM WICKETT OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS LOT COVERAGE, AS WELL AS A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2308 MAR EAST STREET (FILE #21207) (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-195-01) WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #21116) filed by Peter Wilton ( "Applicant ") for the construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with variances requested for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, as well as a request for a floor area exception, for property located at 2308 Mar East Street; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the owners of the adjacent home located at 2306 Mar East Street, Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett ( "Appellants "), raised objections to the proposed project, noting negative privacy, noise and lighting impacts if the proposed rear and side decks were constructed, in addition to a proposed increase in the amount of windows on the southwest elevation of the home; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board concluded that it shared many of the same concerns, as the impacts on the Appellants' property appeared to be substantial. The Board also struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances requested for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage. The application was therefore continued, with the Applicant directed to work with the Appellants on an adequate compromise in order to reduce the negative impacts to the Appellants' property; and WHEREAS, after requesting several continuances for the application, the Applicant subsequently withdrew the application due to permit streamlining act time limitations and re- submitted the application as a new filing (File #21207) on March 5, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered the new application (File #21207) at its meeting of May 3, 2012, at which time the design of the home had not significantly changed from the original application. However, the Board determined that the Applicant had made progress towards addressing the concerns raised by the Appellants, including a reduction in the depth of the proposed rear decks, elimination of the side deck expansion (which eliminated the need for the right side yard setback variance), modification to the entry door, a reduction in the amount of windows on the southwest elevation, and modifications to the exterior deck lighting. The Board heard additional public testimony regarding the application from the Appellants, who noted that the project, as re- designed, would still result in privacy, noise and lighting impacts to their property. The Appellants also asserted that the Applicant should not be permitted to expand outside of the existing building envelope; and Town Council Resolution No. 29 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 1 of 3 IE NO. WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board agreed that additional modifications were necessary to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts on the Appellants. The Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for both parties to be happy with the project, but explained that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the building envelope as the project was modest in scope. The Board continued the project with direction given to the Applicant to further modify the project; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered revised plans on June 7, 2012 at which time additional modifications had been made to the project to lessen the impacts on the Appellants. Modifications included a further reduction in the depth of the upper level rear deck, a reduction in the size of windows on the southwest elevation, and installation of privacy screens on the west side of both the upper and lower level decks at the rear of the home. The Appellants continued to object to the project, noting remaining concerns regarding privacy, noise and lighting impacts; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that the Applicant had made significant progress toward addressing the concerns of the neighbor, and concluded that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the existing building envelope as the project was modest in scope. In addition, the Board determined that the contemporary R -2 zoning designation placed on these nineteenth century lots along the Mar East Street waterfront provided an ill fit in general, and stated that it would be a hardship to the Applicant to be unable to expand the home modestly when other owners in the vicinity had been pennitted to expand, sometimes to a larger degree. The Board voted (3 -0), to conditionally approve the application; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision, objecting to the variance findings made for the requested excess lot coverage and objecting to the granting of the floor area exception, and asserting that the project would be materially detrimental and injurious due to negative privacy and lighting impacts on their property. In addition, the Appellants asserted that the granting of the variance was in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing a non- confonnity; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2012, the Town Council held a duly - noticed public hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the proposed project and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the Town Council found that it could not make the required findings for a variance based on the evidence in the project record. The Town Council determined that to the extent a strict application of the zoning ordinance could create a hardship on the Applicant, that hardship was self - created, in that it was caused by the manner in which the previous owner had developed the property. In addition, the project would be injurious to other property in the vicinity, and the proximity of the proposed rear decks to the Appellants' master bedroom would cause noise and privacy impacts. The Town Council also concluded that an expansion project could be designed without expanding outside of the existing building envelope that would reduce project impacts on the Appellants; and Town Council Resolution No. 29 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Town Council further concluded that the Mar East Street waterfront is an eclectic area, and that privacy will likely always be an issue in this neighborhood. However, differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity if such improvements would result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties. Such differences were not necessarily a hardship. The Town Council stated that there would appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and that the Appellants and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works towards that compromise; and WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5 -0, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal and denying the application without prejudice, waiving any design review - related fees for a design re- submittal responsive to Town Council direction provided at the August 15, 2012 hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby grants the appeal of Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett and denies the application for additions to a single family residence at 2308 Mar East Street (File #21207). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on September 5, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. 29 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 3 of 3 N,- 7 T � 3.. I RESOLUTION NO. 30-2012 RESOLUTION OF ! WN COUNCIL OF ., E TOWN OF i GRANTING AN APPEAL BY DAVID KULIK OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'.9. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS LOT COVERAGE, li.. AREA EXCEPTION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2308 r (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. + + WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #21116) filed by Peter Wilton ( "Applicant ") for the construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with variances requested for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, as well as a request for a floor area exception, for property located at 2308 Mar East Street; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the owner of the adjacent home located at 2310 Mar East Street, David Kulik ( "Appellant'), raised objections to the proposed project, noting negative privacy, noise, view and lighting impacts if the proposed rear decks and kitchen/expansion were constructed; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board concluded that it shared many of the same concerns, as the impacts on the Appellant's property appeared to be substantial. The Board also struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances requested for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage. The application was therefore continued, with the Applicant directed to work with the Appellant on an adequate compromise in order to reduce the negative impacts to the Appellant's property; and WHEREAS, after requesting several continuances for the application, the Applicant subsequently withdrew the application due to pen-nit streamlining act time limitations and re- submitted the application as a new filing (File #21207) on March 5, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered the new application (File #21207) at its meeting of May 3, 2012, at which time the design of the home did not significantly change from the original application. However, the Board determined that the Applicant had made progress towards addressing the concerns raised by the Appellant, including a reduction in the depth of the proposed rear decks, modifications to the exterior deck lighting, and elimination of the vertical support structures and the small deck in front of the kitchen addition/expansion. The Board heard additional public testimony from the Appellant, who noted that the project, as re- designed, would still result in privacy, noise, view, odor and lighting impacts to his property. The Appellant also asserted that the Applicant should not be permitted to expand outside of the existing building envelope; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board agreed that more could be done to the project to further reduce impacts on the Appellant's property; however, the Town Council Resolution No. 30 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 1 of 3 r, Board determined that the project, as designed, would actually improve privacy for the Appellant due to way the kitchen addition/expansion was sited and the placement of the windows at the area of addition. The Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for both parties to be happy with the project, but explained that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the building envelope since the project was modest in scope. The Board continued the application with direction given to the Applicant to further modify the project; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered revised plans on June 7, 2012 at which time additional modifications had been made to the project to lessen the impacts on the Appellant's property. Modifications included a further reduction in the depth of the upper level rear deck to align with the proposed kitchen addition/expansion and lower level deck. The Appellant continued to object to the project, noting remaining concerns regarding privacy, noise, odor and lighting impacts; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that the Applicant had made significant progress toward addressing the concerns of the Appellant, and concluded that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the existing building envelope as the project was modest in scope. In addition, the Board determined that the contemporary R -2 zoning designation placed on these nineteenth century lots along the Mar East Street waterfront provided an ill fit in general, and stated that it would be a hardship to the Applicant to be unable to expand the home modestly when other owners in the vicinity had been permitted to expand, sometimes to a larger degree. The Board voted (3 -0), to conditionally approve the application; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2012, Appellant filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision, objecting to the variance findings made for the requested reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and asserting that the project would result in several adverse and injurious effects to his property. In addition, the Appellant asserted that the granting of the variance was in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing a non - conformity, and also objected to the approval of a modified door, which is located on Appellant's property; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2012, the Town Council held a duly - noticed public hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the proposed project and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the Town Council found that it could not make the required findings for a variance based on the evidence in the project record. The Town Council determined that to the extent a strict application of the zoning ordinance could create a hardship on the Applicant, that hardship was self - created, in that it was caused by the manner in which the previous owner had developed the property. In addition, project would be injurious to other property in the vicinity; the proposed kitchen addition /expansion and rear decks would be too close to Appellant's various living areas and would adversely affect the Appellant's privacy and view, and the expanded outdoor areas would generate additional noise. The Town Council also concluded that an expansion project Town Council Resolution No. 30 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 2 of 3 E�'.-HB _ could be designed without expanding outside of the existing building envelope that would reduce project impacts on the Appellant's property, and WHEREAS, the Town Council further concluded that the Mar East Street waterfront is an eclectic area, and that privacy will likely always be an issue in this neighborhood. However, differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity, if such improvements result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties. Such differences were not necessarily a hardship. The Town Council stated that there would appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and that the Appellant and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works towards that compromise; and WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5 -0, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal and denying the application without prejudice, waiving any design review - related fees for a design re- submittal responsive to Town Council direction provided at the August 15, 2012 hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby grants the appeal of David Kulik and denies the application (File #21207) for additions to a single family residence at 2308 Mar East Street. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on September 5, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. 30 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 3 of 3 1 �J B TT NO To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting March 7, 2013 Agenda Item: 3 Subject: 2308 Mar East Street; File No. 21220; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single- Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception Reviewed By: .! F ADDRESS: 2308 MAR EAST STREET OWNER: MAR EAST REALTY, LLC APPLICANT: MOHAMAD SADRIEH ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 059- 195 -01 FILE NUMBER: 21220 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQUARE FEET (DRY LAND = 2,017) ZONING: R -2 (TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X/VE DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 23, 2013 PSA DEADLINE: MAY 3, 2013 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section 15301. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling, located at 2308 Mar East Street, with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. Currently the property is improved with a two -story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. The main level (street level) of the existing dwelling includes a dining room, lounge, kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom, a store room, a two -car garage and a large sun room. The lower level includes a bedroom and bathroom, the master bedroom suite, a laundry room, a storage cellar, and two decks. TOWN of TIBURON PAGE1 of 9 BT . 1 7- D 3 Marc The proposal would incorporate a small addition as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel. At the main level, the front entry walkway would be partially in -filled for a new interior stairwell. A new deck would also extend off the living room at the right side of the home. At the lower level, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space. The right side deck would be raised to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom, reduced in depth to comply with the permitted side yard setback encroachment, and include construction of a small walkway to access the existing rear deck at this level. A new exterior deck/walkway would be constructed from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. For lots that are partially tidal, such as the subject property, only the portion of land above the mean high tide line is utilized in calculating gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The portion of the lot above the mean high tide line is only 2,017 square feet. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). Therefore, a variance has been requested for excess lot coverage. The current dwelling has an existing gross floor area of 2,569 square feet. The proposal would increase the floor area by approximately 240 square feet, resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,809 square feet. As the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property is 706 square feet, the proposal would exceed the maximum by 2,103 square feet. Therefore, a floor area exception has also been requested. Proposed color and materials for the dwelling include: stucco siding in dark beige, gray window sashes, metallic grey facia, and oiled timber striping at the garage door. M':�T4)1 0laeI i7 This application was previously reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board on June 7, 2012. The previous approval included variances for reduced side yard setback, excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The property owners of 2' :)06 and 2310 Mar East Street both filed separate appeals of the Board's decision to the Town Council. On August 15, 2012, the Town Council heard and considered testimony from both neighbors, as well as the applicant. Copies of the Town Council minutes and staff report are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. During deliberations, the Town Council recognized that the Design Review Board tried to accommodate both parties, while providing guidance to the applicant. The Council ultimately opined that privacy was the main issue with the project, and agreed with the appellants that the variance findings could not be made, as the project would result in impacts to the neighboring properties. However, the Council recognized that there appeared to be ways to modify the project so that these impacts would be lessened on the neighbors, while still allowing the applicant to obtain the desired project result requested. The Council also felt that there may be ways to articulate the necessary variance findings, depending on how the project was modified and the magnitude of the variance requested. The Council gave direction to the applicant to not expand the project outside of the existing building footprint, and that a modest expansion outside of the footprint, if not impactful to the neighbors, might be supported. The Council directed the applicant to continue working with the neighbors, as there was clearly a need to work toward a compromise. The Council therefore granted both appeals and denied the project without prejudice, allowing the applicant to re- submit �� — ",'7 a � I_11 TT d p ..? d,:. a.. a substantially different application for the Design Review Board to review. The applicant has now submitted plans for a revised project. Design Issues The application previously approved by the Board and subsequently denied by the Town Council, included rear decks at both the upper and lower levels, as well as a small kitchen addition located at the upper level left side, which required a side yard setback variance. The applicant has now redesigned the project which eliminates the rear deck spaces, kitchen addition, and need for a side yard setback variance. The proposed project focuses on the overall interior and exterior remodel to the home, with the enclosure of the stairwell at the front entry, and right side deck/walkway improvements. The proposal incorporates a new upper level right side deck that would be located above the existing lower level right side deck. Since the proposed deck would be located above the existing lower level right side deck, its incorporation would not increase the lot coverage for the property nor would be considered an expansion outside of the existing building footprint for the property. The proposed upper deck would be situated above the existing lower deck on the right side of the house. The new deck would be visible from few vantage points outside the home at 2306 Mar East Street, including the top of the entry steps closest to the street and a corner of the deck adjacent to the laundry room. The rearmost portion of the new deck would only be visible from the outside conger of one bedroom of the adjacent house. The design of this deck would appear to minimize any visual privacy impacts on the neighboring residence. While the previously proposed rear decks at both the upper and lower levels are no longer part of the application, the applicant has incorporated floor -to- ceiling height Nana Wall systems at both levels to replace existing non- operable windows, with the intention that the living spaces would feel and appear more open to the bay. Although the elimination of both rear deck expansions would prevent significant privacy and noise impacts from those new decks on the adjacent neighbors, the Nana Wall system on the upper level would allow the entire living room and the proposed deck to become a large, open plan area that could encourage groups of people for entertaining and transmit much of the noise from this entire space to neighboring properties. Although the new deck would not be visible from most of the rooms of the neighboring dwelling, that home includes bedrooms on the side facing the subject property which would be susceptible to any noise from the upper deck and open living room. The house also includes several operable windows facing the side property line that are used for ventilation of this portion of the house, and, when open, would allow any additional outdoor noise into the living areas. Section 16- 52.020(H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines guiding principles which are to be considered by the Design Review Board in reviewing site plan and architectural review applications. Subsection 2 of this code section states that the Board should consider "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise - generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on ,- J.IBIITN0._7_ 'Re'view !>t't 1 t ��- development imposed by particular site conditions." Therefore, in reviewing the subject application, the Board should evaluate the combination of the new upper level deck and the Nana Wall system in relation to the dwellings located on the adjacent sites at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street, particularly in regard to potential acoustic privacy impacts. During both the Design Review Board meeting and Town Council meeting, there did not appear to be any significant concerns regarding the request to enclose a portion of the front walkway for a new interior stairwell. However, the adjacent neighbor at 2306 Mar East Street voiced concerns regarding the amount of window are on the southwest elevation, which included windows for the proposed stairwell. The current application appears to include approximately the same amount of glazing at this elevation that was previously approved by the Design Review Board. The Board should therefore determine whether a reduction in the amount of glazing at this elevation should be required. Hillside Design Guidelines The following portions of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the design of the house as proposed: ® Goal 2, Principle 9 states that acoustic privacy is important to all residents, and that dwellings should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors. ks t1P�j, ^ The utilization of the proposed upper level deck on the right side of the dwelling, combined with the Nana Wall system on the upper and lower levels of the rear of the home, would have the potential to result in noise and acoustic privacy impacts for the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The submitted plans contain discrepancies regarding existing or proposed chimney locations on the house. The submitted elevations indicate a chimney on the left side of the house, although •'NT T NO` .i there is no indication on the roof plan of this chimney and the floor plans do not show any fireplaces in the house. The applicant should be directed to clarify this issue at the meeting. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R -2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variance for excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances for excess lot coverage, 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 zone. The subject site slopes steeply downward towards he bay and is extremely narrow (45 feet in width), similar to many of the properties in the immediate vicinity. The existing structure is constructed partially below the mean high tide line and over Raccoon Strait. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 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. Granting the variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges, as a majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site have requested and been granted multiple variances in order to build more adequately sized dwellings, than what would normally only be permitted, due to the small dry land areas of each parcel. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self - 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. Staff is unable to snake this finding as the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not create an unnecessary hardship, but would only limit the applicant to a current building footprint and floor area that already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. It would appear that granting the variance could be viewed as detrimental to the neighboring property located at 2306 Mar East Street; however, the proposed =, IT N. improvements that would increase the lot coverage (lower level deck/walkway and interior stairwell at entry) would not appear to be injurious to the neighbor. It should be noted that the proposed upper level right side deck does not count toward lot coverage, as it would be constructed over an existing lower level right side deck which is already counted toward the existing lot coverage for the property. There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variance requested. In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16- 52.020(I[4]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed additions would not substantially alter the visual size and scale of the dwelling, as the property additions are minor expansions to existing living areas, currently located either at the rear of the dwelling and covered by the existing roof of the structure, or at the right side of the property, which would not be visually prominent. Therefore, the visual size and scale of the dwelling with the minor additions as proposed would remain compatible with the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. The proposed additions would be located within the existing building footprint on the site, and would therefore not substantially alter the appearance of the dwelling, nor the physical characteristics of the site. The dwelling would therefore remain compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. From the evidence provided, staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception. Staff notes that projects which request both a floor area exception and an excess lot coverage variance are generally viewed as a fundamental overbuilding of the lot, and have not usually been supported by the Design Review Board. However, the Board has made exceptions to this detennination for many waterfront properties along Paradise Drive and Mar East Street that have small dry land areas. Public Comment As of the date of this report, two (2) letters have been received regarding this application from the neighboring property owners at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street.. CONCLUSION The applicant has made an attempt to modify the project in order to reach a compromise with the neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The Design Review Board must determine H-!r §T- whether the project has been sufficiently modified to avoid privacy impacts on these neighboring properties. If the Board cannot make such a detennination, direction should be given to the applicant to further modify the project design, or the Board should recommend denial of the application. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16- 52.020(H) (Guiding Principles), Section 16- 52.030(E) (Variances) and Section 16- 52.020(I) (Floor Area Guidelines), and determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301; and 1. Determine whether the revised project addresses privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors, and articulate clear findings for the requested variance, specifically for the physical hardship finding; and 2. If the Board determines that impacts to the adjacent neighbors at 2306 and 2310 Mar East would remain, and that findings for the variance cannot be articulated, then staff would recommend that the Board either continue the project and provide direction to the applicant on how best to remedy these impacts and the variance request, or direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. 3. If the Board determines that the project would be consistent with the principles of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Hillside Design Guidelines, and can articulate clear findings for the variance requested, it is recommended that the Board approve the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Minutes of the August 15, 2012 Town Council meeting 4. Town Council staff report dated August 15, 2012 5. Letter from Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, dated February 26, 2013 6. Letter from David and Kathryn Kulik, dated February 26, 2013 7. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel Watrous, Planning Manager -ti t BT IT N a 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21220; Mar East Realty LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions would cover 71.1% of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,809 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 615 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 271 -03. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling, located at 2308 Mar East Street, with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The proposal would incorporate a small addition as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel. At the main level, the front entry walkway would be partially in- filled for a new interior stairwell. A new deck would also extend off the living room at the right side of the home. At the lower level, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space. The right side deck would be raised to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom, reduced in depth to comply with the permitted side yard setback encroachment, and include construction of a small walkway to access the existing rear deck at this level. A new exterior deck/walkway would be constructed from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). Therefore, a variance has been requested for excess lot coverage. The current dwelling has an existing gross floor area of 2,569 square feet. The proposal would increase the floor area by approximately 240 square feet, resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,809 square feet. As the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property is 706 square feet, the proposal would exceed the maximum by 2,103 square feet. Therefore, a floor area exception has also been requested. Peter Wilton, owner, said that the application has gone through three separate DRB hearings since December 2011, and was finally approved in June 2012 before being appealed by two neighbors to the Town Council where it was overturned. He said that since that time they have discussed the project more with the neighbors. He said that they listened to the Council's advice and the concerns about privacy matters and not allowing the property to be improved outside of the existing footprint. He said that they addressed all of these issues in the revised plan. He said that this is their home and they want to age in place and therefore want a single -floor design. Mr. Wilton reviewed the scope of the proposal, including finishing an existing storage room, updating the exterior, and creating livable space. He showed photos of the current and proposed design. He said that the upper deck would not be an expansion of the existing footprint and did not require variances. He said that the floor area exception was required for the enclosure of the covered porch, and the lot coverage variance was required for the lower level walkway. He showed a chart of the dwelling size in relation to other properties on Mar East Street showing that the house would be in the middle range. He said that the strict application of the lot coverage requirement would impose an unnecessary hardship because of the unique topography of the rr: TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 3/7/13 waterfront property. He said that the project objectives were to increase the functionality and look of the house and to increase privacy. He said that enclosing the exterior walkway would reduce noise and protect from inclement weather. He said that the lot coverage requirement does not make much sense for waterfront residences because when the bulk of the property is built over the water it is not counted as lot coverage. He showed an overhead photo of 2' )06 Mar East Street where the bulk of the building is over water. He said that they were trying to abide by the restriction to stay within the existing footprint of the house. He said there are precedents to support the requested variance. Mr. Wilton said that the neighbors have continuing concerns over deck placement, acoustics, and lighting. He said that they have met with both neighbors and asked for suggestions, and unfortunately no suggestions were made. He stated that their current design included everything the Town Council has suggested, including a dramatically reduced project size, contaimnent within the existing footprint, an open plan living area, and upper side deck. He said that the latter two suggestions were made explicitly by the neighbors in the past, but the neighbors now object to these changes. Mr. Wilton stated that there had been plenty of dialogue and discussion with neighbors to get to a reasonable plan, but without a deck, windows, and doors they were being asked to be "cocooned" and that no other residence in Old Tiburon has those restrictions. He pointed out decks, windows, and doors on other residences in the area. He stated that the second bedroom at 2306 Mar East Street was an addition and has only a four foot setback. He said that the floor to ceiling windows already exist on his property and pointed out that the home at 2310 Mar East Street also has tall windows. He said that the upper deck would be located above the existing lower deck and would not create any more noise or impact than the existing deck and might also shield light impacts. Mr. Wilton said that the neighboring House at 2310 Mar East Street is only eight feet from his living room because the previous owner moved the lot line in 1971 when he owned both properties. Mr. Wilton showed an overhead photo indicating the proximity of decks on neighboring properties. He said that the house at 2310 Mar East Street already has a deck that has noise impacts on his living room and he felt that this is part of living in that area, as it is quite common for decks to be in close proximity on Mar East. He pointed out that the requested upper deck did not require a variance and they believe that there would be no light intrusion because of the 30 foot fence between the properties. He stated that the application was entirely consistent with what is going on in Tiburon and in the area. He showed a video of the view from the property's proposed deck. The public hearing was opened. Jim Wickett said that the proposed additions would all be located facing his house and his bedrooms. He objected to the side yard being transformed into the center of traffic and activity. He said that in the spirit of compromise they would be willing to accept some additions if others were eliminated. He stated that the upper and lower decks would be ten feet away from their bedroom. He asked that the upper deck be eliminated and replaced by picture windows as it would violate the Hillside Guidelines because noise from the deck would reverberate to lower living areas. He asked to eliminate the side deck walkway to reduce traffic and noise and reduce the size of the center great room to lessen noise and light pollution and their ability to sleep in TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 1 HT tom �--, 3/7/13 their bedrooms. He said that any addition in the side yard facing them would be injurious to their privacy. In order to compromise, he said that they would be willing to accept some of the additions if the ones they have specified are eliminated. David K ulik said that he was concerned with the issue of acoustics, as the NanaWall situation would create a large open plan area that would transmit much of the noise from this space to neighboring properties. He said that screening was not possible in this location and so any screening must be part of the project itself. He also had an issue with lighting, which would be exacerbated by the water. He made suggestions to shield interior light from radiating outward. He said that the glass guard rail was a concern and suggested replacing it with treated wood or non - reflective metal. He said that they are not opposed to the NanaWall system but to the extreme nature of it and he would like the impacts to their home to be reduced. Mik Flynn said that she lives two doors down from the project. She noted that the rear deck was eliminated but the project would still have major sound and light problems that would impact neighbors. She said that because houses in this area have a large portion over water, they cannot plant screening. She said that sound carries significantly farther over water and the sound issues need to be addressed. She said that the new design proposes NanaWalls facing Angel Island, but the upper deck would face her home and there would be no protection from noise for other homes in the vicinity when the NanaWalls are open. She said that the light reflecting off the glass, glass railing, and the water would act like a mirror shining into neighbors' properties. She said that she has the same issue with a neighbor where the addition of a small deck and sliding door has destroyed her privacy. Ms. Flynn read a letter submitted by Mr. Klaus Meinberg, who felt that a rebuild was acceptable but must stay within the lot coverage of the R -2 zone. Mr. Wilton said that the Town Council told him that he should be able to build a deck as long as he stayed within the existing footprint. He said that he was flexible with the amount of NanaWall to be used in the design. Boardmember Tollini asked if the upper deck would include a glass railing. Mr. Wilton said that both the upper and lower deck would have 42 inch glass railings. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said that the most confusing part of this process was the variance for increased coverage. He noted that the staff report indicated that the findings could not be made for the variance, but for him, it was easy to make the findings because the project would create a more usable floor plan. He said that the existing lot coverage is not to code and he pointed out that the Board recently approved a house on one of these lots with a greater coverage than requested by this application. He said that the neighbors' concerns were not the 75 square feet of enclosed stairway, but were really noise, privacy, and light issues. He said that reducing glass above the door would help. He said that the biggest concerns were the upper deck and the NanaWalls and he suggested a compromise on the amount of glass and NanaWalls. He said that raising the existing lower deck to be even with the lower level made sense and would only affect r, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 P TT i 3/7/13 the neighbors by bringing the eye level closer to the window level. He said that the door to one of the back bedrooms was proposed to be a standard sliding glass door and he suggested a compromise of French doors with some glass and some wood. He said that he was very conflicted about the upper deck because it is off of the living room and would be noisier than the lower level deck, which is off a bedroom. However, he noted that there are many houses with both upper and lower level decks all along the waterfront. He said that he could also understand the neighbors' concerns about noise and privacy. Boardmember Tollini said when the Board originally saw this application he thought that the main issue and most of the dialogue was about privacy. He said that he was shocked to read the minutes from the Town Council meeting to find that the basis of the decision was the application of the R -2 zoning standards in the denial of the variance and not the privacy issue. He said that the homes in this area fit into the neighborhood. He said that the project was now much closer to being within the existing footprint of the house. Boardmember Tollini said that he personally thought that this house was a worse design than the previous one. He said that the concerns over the NanaWall were legitimate. He thought that the Board's hands were tied regarding the variance. He felt that what is really needed is a "Marine /R -2" zone because R -2 zoning does not make sense for this property and other properties in the waterfront area. He said that this is the smallest and least developed property in the area and he believed that the variance for the small additional 75 square feet would not be injurious at all. Boardmember Tollini said that he had some reservations about the upper deck. He felt that the deck railing should be something other than glass, and he suggested that some parts be solid and taller. He was not convinced that the deck would be a negative change from what currently exists. He suggested reducing some of the NanaWall to reduce the amount looking into the neighboring house, which would help him be more supportive of the upper deck. He said that the lower deck would be an improvement over what currently exists and he supported leaving it as is. However, he thought that it would be better for the applicant to have solid instead of glass railings. Vice Chair Chong said that if he looked at this as an application coming in for the first time, it would not look like a lot that was being requested. He noted that other similar projects in the area have been approved. He noted the difficulty in certain areas of the Tiburon Peninsula where homes are in close proximity to each other, but he thought that people understand that situation when they purchase a home. He said that there could be some screening, but added that there are many examples of decks looking across to bedrooms on the street where homes are in close proximity. He was unsure what to do with the variance. Vice Chair Chong said that the original and new designs did not differ in the amount of glazing. He said that it is usually too cold to leave the windows open at night and therefore noise would not be as much an impact as expected. He said that the reason people move to these areas is for views of the water and they should be allowed to maximize outdoor space. He said that this did not feel like an unreasonable project in terms of privacy impacts and the project size and footprint. TMURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 NIJITBIT O.- 10 3I7I13 Chair Emberson agreed with Vice Chair Chong regarding the direction of the Town Council that privacy and noise were as important as views. She agreed that a different zone was needed that covers this stretch of land, adding that the R -2 zoning should not be used in this area because it would mean a 706 square foot house on this lot. She did not think that the upper deck would create a privacy issue for the neighbors, but the direction of the Town Council was to take their privacy and sound concerns as being as important as the view. She said that this meant that if the neighbors felt that the deck and NanaWalls would create noise, then it must be addressed. She said that the Town Council had said that the deck would have to be added in the area of the existing footprint, but she pointed out that that would not change the amount of noise impact. Boardmember Tollini asked if there was a way to improve existing privacy by allowing a deck and having it shielded by the fence. Chair Emberson said that she does not know about that, but felt that what was needed was a zoning change, adding that the existing situation is untenable. Director Anderson said that his understanding from the Town Council minutes was that the Council was more bothered by the side yard variance than the coverage variance. He said that the reason the Council used to uphold the appeal in the resolutions was the inability to make variance findings. His opinion was that the Town Council did not like the application that came before them, but he suggested that the Board not read too much into the discussion of the lot coverage variance. He thought that the focus of the Council was more on the side yard variance, adding that denying a project on the basis of failure to meet variance findings was an easily defensible strategy. Vice Chair Chong asked if the applicant would be open to shielding on the upper deck and lower deck. Mr. Wilton said they would be open to that as long as they could still see the Golden Gate Bridge. Vice Chair Chong said that he had seen some homes on the street with that type of high screening. Chair Emberson said that the lower deck already looks into the neighboring house and such shielding was unnecessary on the lower deck. She said that she could support the idea of a wall shielding the upper deck. Chair Emberson asked about making the NanaWalls a little smaller to reduce noise. Boardmember Tollini suggested reducing them by a quarter of their length so the doors would not open as far. He said that there would be eight doors and suggested removing two of them. Vice Chair Chong said that the doors would stack up against the walls. Chair Emberson suggested the doors could all stack up on one wall. Mr. Wilton said that they could make the doors fixed. Boardmember Tollini said that they were trying to keep the glazing closer to what is currently in that location. Chair Emberson suggested keeping the amount of glazing but making the glazing non - operable. Chair Emberson asked about the lower -level NanaWalls. Boardmember Tollini said that he was not as concerned since it is a bedroom and there would not be as much noise since it is a private space. Chair Emberson asked about reducing the glazing of the clerestory windows over the covered walkway to one level instead of two. Mr. Wilton said that they had three levels before and had TMURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 3/7/13 already reduced it to two levels. He said that they need the natural light in the walkway. Boardmember Kricensky said that the amount of glazing could be reduced and still provide that function. He said that the amount of activity on the deck was a concern in terms of privacy. He said that these houses are close together and these situations occur on many of the homes. He said that there was no place to put a deck without reducing the upper level living space. Boardmember Tollini thought that what exists is not very private because the living room currently looks into a bedroom. He said that if the Board cannot support the upper deck as designed, they should give specific direction as to what the glazing in that area should be. Boardmember Kricensky said that Chair Emberson was exactly right about the zoning. He said that there will never be consistency over the years unless zoning is created for waterfront property. He said that other houses in this area have a lot of glass but very few have wall -to -wall glass in the area. He said that this would be a lot of light pollution and a lot of noise could be generated when the NanaWalls are opened, and that requiring some solid wall on the corners could help reduce that. Boardmember Tollini agreed and said that enclosing the edges and removing a portion of the glazing would do much better. Boardmember Kricensky said that the NanaWalls could be replaced by sliders or other methods. Boardmember Kricensky said that he would have really liked to see a neutral party work with the applicant and neighbors to come up with a solution. Chair Emberson thought that whatever the Board did would be appealed to the Town Council and they should just do their best. Boardmember Tollini said that he and Boardmember Kricensky have concerns about the entire upper wall being NanaWall. He suggested reducing it by 25% and at least half of that should be replaced by solid wall on the side looking into the Kulik's home. Vice Chair Chong said that he struggled with this because he did not think the amount of glazing would make as much difference if it was a NanaWall versus picture windows. He said that someone with a home there should be able to look out of glazing instead of a solid wall. Chair Emberson agreed. Vice Chair Chong said if huge French doors were put in instead of NanaWalls it would create the same amount of noise. Chair Emberson thought that the windows should be inoperable and that would create the barrier. Boardmember Kricensky thought that reducing glazing on the corner by about 25% and replacing that with wall would be helpful, as he did not want to take away the entire dining area view. Boardmember Tollini suggested taking away one window panel out of the eight. Chair Emberson asked if they need a lot coverage variance for the upper deck. Director Anderson answered that a variance is not needed for the deck. Boardmember Tollini said that the lower deck currently goes into the side yard setback and asked if that required a variance when it was built. Director Anderson said decks are allowed to encroach three feet into the required side yard setback without need for a variance. The Board could not come to consensus on the specific changes to reduce glazing, noise, and privacy from the upper and lower decks. Boardmember Kricensky asked both parties to work together to try to come to an agreement on the project before the next meeting. TMURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 � 12 3/7/13 1 HI � O. _> _ ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Chong) to continue to continue the application for 2308 Mar East Street to the April 4, 2013 meeting. Vote: 4 -0. F. APPROVAL, OF MINUTES #3 OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Chair Emberson requested the following changes and corrections: Page 4, last paragraph, line 3: "...would be look pretty large..." should be changed to ``...would look large... Page 6, 3'-a paragraph, line 1: "With respect neighbors..." should be changed to "With respect to neighbors ". Page 6, 6th paragraph, line 3: ``...parking deck where at this location..." should be changed to "...parking deck at this location... ". Page 7, last paragraph, line 3: "...could not be built without exceptions or variances... should be changed to "...could not be built here without exceptions or variances...". Page 9, 6th paragraph, last line: ``...unless otherwise improved..." should be changed to "...unless otherwise oproved ... ". Boardmember Kricensky requested the following change: Page 8, 4th paragraph, line 11: "The height and massing of the garage..." should be changed to "The massing of the garage... ". ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2013 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. LINDA EMBERSON, CHAIR Tiburon Design Review Board ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY iJ TA TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 3/7/13 M From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design. Review Board Meeting April 18, 2013 Agenda Item: 1 Subject: 2308 Mar East Street; File No. 21220; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single - Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception (Continued from March 7, 2013) Reviewed By: The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling, located at 2308 Mar East Street, with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. Currently the property is improved with a two -story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. This application was first reviewed at the March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the adjacent property owners at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street raised concerns about potential acoustic privacy impacts that could be caused by the proposed upper level deck and the Nana Walls proposed at the rear of the house for both levels. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but was unable to form a consensus on the merits of or potential modifications to the application. The Board continued the application to the April 4, 2013 meeting and encouraged the applicant and neighbors to attempt to meet to address these concerns. Since that meeting, the applicant has met with the owners of 2306 Mar East Street and with Town staff to discuss possible modifications to the project design. The applicant has now submitted revised project plans. The revised project design eliminates the previously proposed main level deck on the right side of the house. Nana Walls would be installed on two corners of the living room. The rear dining room windows would not be fully operable. The lower level deck is no longer proposed to be raised to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom. Other improvements proposed by the previous project design remain unchanged, including the conversion of the entry walkway into an enclosed stairwell, window changes to the side of the building, and construction of connecting walkways to the lower level deck. The lot coverage and floor area of the revised project design has not changed. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). Therefore, a variance has been requested for excess lot coverage. The current dwelling has an existing gross floor area of 2,569 square feet. The proposal would increase the floor area by approximately 240 square feet, TOWN OF TIBURON k -7 \r r -g 1B gp pg PAGE I OF 6 tie i?;, tF lec ,. resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,809 square feet. As the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property is 706 square feet, the proposal would exceed the maximum by 2,103 square feet. Therefore, a floor area exception has also been requested. ANALYSIS Designs Issues The removal of the main level living room deck represents a substantial change from the previously reviewed plans. The elimination of this deck would greatly reduce the potential for noise impacts from outdoor activities on the adjacent home at 2306 Mar East Street. The applicant has also reduced the overall length of the Nana Walls that would be able to be completely open from the living room. The elimination of the exterior deck would reduce the previously raised concerns about the living room and proposed deck becoming a large, open plan area that could encourage groups of people for entertaining and transmit much of the noise from this entire space to neighboring properties. However, a portion of the Nana Wall system would be installed along the side of the living room facing the neighbors at 2306 Mar East Street. The Design Review Board should consider whether this design would still create too much potential for noise from activities in the living room to be heard by the neighboring residents. As noted in the March 7, 2013 staff report, Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "acoustic privacy is important to all residents, and that dwellings should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors." F The removal of the main level deck would eliminate a potential outdoor "active space" that could result in potential acoustical privacy concerns for the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The Design Review Board should detennine whether the extent of the proposed Nana Wall system for the living room would have the potential to result in noise and acoustic privacy impacts for the neighboring property owners. [ t r Z, L7oc IM 5 April IS,, 2"013 During the appeal hearing for the previous application for expansion on this property, the Town Council gave direction to the applicant to not expand the project outside of the existing building footprint, and indicated that a modest expansion outside of the footprint, if not impactful to the neighbors, might be supported. The revised project design would be consistent with this Council direction, as the only proposed expansions (the enclosed entry and lower level connecting walkways) have been previously found to have minimal impacts on neighboring properties. The Design Review Board should consider whether the potential acoustical privacy concerns noted above would be considered to be impactful to neighboring property owners. At the March 7, 2013 meeting, the Design Review Board expressed concerns that the previous Town Council direction limited the Board's ability to thoroughly review the subject application. Staff notes that this application is a different development request, with a different project design, than the application reviewed on appeal by the Town Council. The Design Review Board has the ability to review this application on its own merits, and although the Council's previous direction should inform the Board's deliberations, it should not constrain the Board's review of this separate application. The revised plans still contain discrepancies regarding existing or proposed chimney locations on the house. The submitted elevations indicate a chimney on the left side of the house, although there is no indication on the roof plan of this chimney and the floor plans do not show any fireplaces in the house. The applicant should be directed to clarify this issue at the meeting. Zonlna Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R -2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variance for excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception. The findings necessary to grant the requested variance and floor area exception were discussed in the staff report for the March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. In that report, staff was unable to find that the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not create an unnecessary hardship, as this requirement would only limit the applicant to a current building footprint and floor area that already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size. Staff was able to make the findings for the requested floor area exception. Public Comment As of the date of this report, one letter has been received regarding this application since the March 7, 2013 meeting, from the neighboring property owners at 2306 Mar East Street. CONCLUSION The applicant has substantially modified the project in order to reach a compromise with the neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The Design Review Board must determine whether the project has been sufficiently modified to avoid privacy impacts on these neighboring properties. If the Board cannot make such a determination, direction should be given to the applicant to further modify the project design, or the Board should recommend denial of the application. { T-1: BTT 1 "0 3?ii 1\.c w',girl, tk Staff recommends that the Design Review Board review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16- 52.020(H) (Guiding Principles), Section 16- 52.030(E) (Variances) and Section 16- 52.020(I) (Floor Area Guidelines), and determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301; and Determine whether the revised project addresses privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors, and articulate clear findings for the requested variance, specifically for the physical hardship finding; and 2. If the Board determines that impacts to the adjacent neighbors at 2306 and 2310 Mar East would remain, and that findings for the variance cannot be articulated, then staff would recommend that the Board either continue the project and provide direction to the applicant on how best to remedy these impacts and the variance request, or direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. 3. If the Board determines that the project would be consistent with the principles of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Hillside Design Guidelines, and can articulate clear findings for the variance requested, it is recommended that the Board approve the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. 10.14 111 URM 1. Conditions of approval 2. Design Review Board staff report dated March 7, 2013 3. Minutes of the March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting 4. Letter from Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, dated April 11, 2013 5. Revised plans Prepared By: Daniel Watrous, Planning Manager i / —, Design Review E >oard sleeting April 18, 201.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2308 MAR EAST STREET FILE #21220 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. Construction shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on November 1, 2012 and plans dated April 9, 2013. Any modifications to the plans must receive Design Review approval. 3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud ") on the construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawings, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating whether these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require additional Design Review approval. All such changes that have not been explicitly approved by the Town are not "deemed approved" if not highlighted and listed on construction drawings. Construction of any such unapproved project elements is in violation of permit approvals and shall be subject to Stop Work Orders and removal. 4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approval will be required, prior to issuance of building permits. 5. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non - reflective manner (minimum 25 %) and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down - light -type fixtures. 7. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner /applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner /applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 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 made of durable, weather - resistant materials intended to survive the life of the 1C1��I i ?I'fI'IBURON X € _E. 1"�!O, Page .51)16 Dc4ign Rey ie\v hoard Mcccing April 18, 2013 construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall be posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 9. All requirements of the Director of Public Works /Town Engineer shall be met. An encroachment permit shall be filed and issued with the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department, for all work to be conducted within Town right -of -way, or Town -owned land, as defined in Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 10. All requirements of Marin Municipal Water District shall be met, prior to issuance of building permits. 11. A copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of Action" including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project shall be copied onto a plan sheet at the beginning of the plan set(s) submitted for building permits. 12. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District: a) The structure shall have installed 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 13. The project shall comply with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (13D), if the cost of the project equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure, before the start of construction of this project. TOw\�, ()FTIBUIRON � Page 6 of t� 2� . I a �01 91 Big �! 1 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Emberson. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emberson, Vice Chair Chong, Boardmembers Kricensky and Tollini Absent: None Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None Planning Manager Watrous announced Gordon Cousins has been appointed by the Town Council to fill the vacancy on the Design Review Board and he will be attending the next meeting. He also announced Kyra O'Malley will be the Town's new Assistant Planner. 1. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21220; Mar East Realty LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,809 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 615 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 195 -01. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling, located at 2308 Mar East Street, with a variance for excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. Currently the property is improved with a two -story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. This application was first reviewed at the March 7, 2013 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the adjacent property owners at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street raised concerns about potential acoustic privacy impacts that could be caused by the proposed upper level deck and the Nana Walls proposed at the rear of the house for both levels. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but was unable to form a consensus on the merits of or potential modifications to the application. The Board continued the application to the April 4, 2013 meeting and encouraged the applicant and neighbors to attempt to meet to address these concerns. N �` 1 1 NO� t 0 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #7 4/18/13 Since that meeting, the applicant has met with the owners of 2306 Mar East Street and with Town staff to discuss possible modifications to the project design. The applicant has now submitted revised project plans. The revised project design eliminates the previously proposed main level deck on the right side of the house. Nana Walls would be installed on two corners of the living room. The rear dining room windows would not be fully operable. The lower level deck is no longer proposed to be raised to the floor level of the adjacent bedroom. Other improvements proposed by the previous project design remain unchanged, including the conversion of the entry walkway into an enclosed stairwell, window changes to the side of the building, and construction of connecting walkways to the lower level deck. The lot coverage and floor area of the revised project design has not changed. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 %) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zoning district (35.0 %). Therefore, a variance has been requested for excess lot coverage. The current dwelling has an existing gross floor area of 2,569 square feet. The proposal would increase the floor area by approximately 240 square feet, resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,809 square feet. As the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property is 706 square feet, the proposal would exceed the maximum by 2,103 square feet. Therefore, a floor area exception has also been requested. Sono Zhang played a recording of her partner, Peter Wilton, who could not attend the meeting. He said that they made amendments and compromises to the plan and felt that any more significant changes to the design would render the design too unattractive to proceed. He said that they removed the upper deck and felt that that was a major compromise; however, he said that they would like to be able revisit the issue of the deck on a future application. He stated that they further modified the design to create a feeling of an open -air space in the primary living area. He said that they were asked to have no opening glazing along the entire upper wall of their home and but they felt that that was unreasonable. He said that the revised design would allow their living room to serve as a substitute deck but would not allow overhead sunshine or other aspects of an outdoor environment. He felt strongly that any further reductions to the living room would eliminate their enjoyment of the environment. Mr. Wilton addressed the issue of noise intrusion and noted that many neighbors have unrestricted access to open -air decks and patios that are immediately adjacent to their property. He said that any regular noise from their house would be interior noise and they expect this noise to be much less than noise emanating from an open -air outdoor space. He said that they consulted extensively with neighbors for 20 months and made many revisions to their plan and that the current plan was far different from their original concept, and they were frustrated by the instability of the process. He felt that the consultation process led to a progressive narrowing in scope and functionality of the project. Boardmember Tollini asked about the chimney. Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, said that the chimney is an existing structure and was not being added. Planning Manager Watrous said that the chimney was shown in one location in the floor plans and a different location on the elevations. Mr. Sadrieh said that the chimney stack would be kept in place even though it would no longer connect to a fireplace. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #7 El-,7 TBTT NO. _ 4/18/13 Boardmember Tollini asked for the rationale for keeping the chimney. Mr. Sadrieh said that it would be additional expense to remove it and they hope to avoid doing work on the roof. Boardmember Tollini asked if there is a functional reason to keep the chimney stack, and Mr. Sadrieh said that it could be used to vent an oven in the kitchen. The public hearing was opened. Magdalena Yesil requested that the Board not take away their ability to sleep in their bedrooms. She said that the plans concentrated all of the major improvements on the side of the building that is next to their bedrooms. She said that their only bedroom windows are on the wall facing the subject property. She said that she also continued to have an issue with the variance request. Ms. Yesil asked for three specific changes to the plan to preserve their ability to sleep: 1) replace the side Nana Walls facing her house with nonoperational windows in keeping in size and location with existing picture windows, 2) place the Nana Walls in the rear of the building in the center of the living room and not at the corner closest to her house, possibly dividing the operable rear windows into thirds to shield neighbors from the noise, and 3) eliminate the rear walkway, because it would create noise near their bedrooms and eliminate an acacia tree that provides privacy. She said that the applicants told them that the entry glass windows would be turned into clerestory windows and she requested that the plans incorporate these changes. David Kulik said that the chimney and the side window discussed at the last meeting both remain in the plans. He said that one of the ambiguities of the previous discussion of the sliding window was how far it would open and that is not reflected in the plan. He said that the stairs shown on the plans were also not addressed. He said that certain windows were supposed to be reduced in size facing his house and he expected those windows to be smaller than currently depicted. Mik Flynn stated that it is exceedingly different to live over the water with respect to noise. She said that one can hear conversations much more clearly than in other homes that are not over the water and the more homes are open on the side, the more the noise in the homes affects neighboring properties. She asked the Board to take those issues into account. Mr. Sadrieh asked the Boardmembers to visualize what it would be like to be mandated to live in a home with no access to the outside, as this is what is being asked of the applicant. He said that they were being asked to not have any outdoor openings on three sides of the house. He asked the Board to honestly and fairly think about that issue in their decision. Boardmember Tollini asked about the clerestory windows. Mr. Sadrieh said he was not party to all of the negotiations but he believed that no overarching agreement had been reached regarding those windows. Boardmember Tollini asked about the need for the outdoor walkway and the need to turn left to circulate back to the deck. Mr. Sadrieh said that this was the only way to get down to the deck from the living room area. He said that they were as anxious as the neighbors to keep the acacia tree and have incorporated a hole in the deck plans to keep it. Vice Chair Chong asked about the opening at the corner of the living room. Mr. Sadrieh said that that portion of the house faces out toward the view, and the operable windows would provide TMURON D.R.B. MINUTES #7 `a,l'�'—,.HI BI T 10 4/18/13 some cross- ventilation. He said that the neighboring bedroom is down below and would also be separated by a solid glass railing at the opening, which would help mitigate noise. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that the applicant had bent over backwards to address the concerns of the neighbors as best as possible and he had reached the point where the applicant had done enough for him to support the application. He thought that perhaps the chimney should be removed. He said that he visited the neighbors at 2306 Mar East Street and that side of their house includes a master bedroom, master bath, and another bedroom and the only window with significant exposure is the large window of the master bedroom. He believed that the only time the Nana Wall would be open was during the day, as it is too cold at night for it to be open, and not during the times when the neighboring residents would be in their bedroom and need privacy. He characterized the waterfront during the day as loud. He did not think that it was necessary to install clerestory windows only on the sides. He said that he could not see the sliding door from anywhere on the property at 2306 Mar East. He said that with the deck removed he had no problem with the application. He said that he could make the findings for the variance based on the currently substandard access to the property. Regarding the proposed lower deck walkway, he noted that there was currently no way to access the outside from upstairs without going through the bedroom. Vice Chair Chong said that he agreed with Boardmember Tollini on most points. He said that he visited 2306 Mar East Street and found the acoustic issue to be a pre - existing condition making the Nana Walls solid would not change that condition. He pointed out that these homes are very close together and therefore, an element of noise and hearing neighbors will exist. He stated that neighbors are not supposed to be designing their neighbors' homes but rather bringing up issues and allowing the applicant to address those issues. He said that the applicant had gone out of their way to revise the plans to address concerns and he voiced support for the project. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Boardmembers Tollini and Chong and said that a house on the water should be able to enjoy the outside. He said that the walkway and stairs made sense for safety and convenience. He felt that the applicant had tried to answer everything and that it would be unfair to wall up his views. He noted that the neighbors on both sides have plenty of outdoor space and he thought that the applicant had done what they could to address concerns. Chair Emberson agreed that the applicant had bent over backwards to address concerns. She said that the applicant had to have a better way to get to the lower deck. She said that the Nana Walls would have glass railings and carpets that would mitigate noise. She pointed out that the acacia tree would not be removed. She supported the plan and did not see anything more that could be done other than closing up every window. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini /Chong) that the request for 2308 Mar East Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #7 E`, ! B NO-AD D 4 4/18/13 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. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17 -2010 0311712010 1 E'THIBTT NO. 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested parry raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17 -2010 0311712010 1 2 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. (f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17 -2010 0311712010 3 E-ZvXHIBTT O. � The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES 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: A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three- hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17 -2010 0311712010 4 S. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision - making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff - level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17 -2010 0311712010 i � 5 E TOWN OF TIBURON - LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • Conditional Use Permit • Precise Development Plan • Secondary Dwelling Unit • Zoning Text Amendment • Rezoning or Prezoning • General Plan Amendment • Change of Address TYPE OF APPLICATION • Design Review (DRB) • Design Review (Staff Level) • Variance(s) # • Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Pen-nit PLANNING U ° `- "" • Tentative Subdivision Map • Final Subdivision Map • Parcel Map • Lot Line Adjustment o Condominium Use Permit o Certificate of Compliance o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS:. %��' �= 1 1 hC PROPERTY SIZE: PARCEL NUMBER: �--57' — 1 T b y l ZONING: PROPERTY OWNER: A 2 �=� i �'"- j MAILING ADDRESS: © C '-1:7-7S S ` ' �y y 12 PHONE /FAX NUMBER: g 1 S r 1 f E -MA L: p� f� +-1 A -.: !a W( L_ i U C E I { J 1_e.t ���Cj' y APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): 14atleg 7141-:1 �iil�2 /Err' ? 3 c MAILING ADDRESS: 1 41 6 /;V, Gr 5112 (- PHONE /FAX NUMBER: E -MAIL: ARCHITECT /DESIGNER/ENGINEER MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE /FAX NUMBER: E -MAIL: Please indicate with an asterisk ( *) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): %) /�l%'l 7-1 nJ of g�IF '�y^ 9,/ / 544r A/-7z7 /770.c� df= T/�iQS f— x!'/g/,li /DN t^F 71/ , V R 77. ?n S/— . /9-17 S 1 tom/' isc. 7 Goo c �� tic ��2 F� ,71JZ9ST�i �h'T rF 1117,- I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims --gr liabilities Arisilig from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's N=� ight res it fr e dtird pa y challenge 0 \ 3Ci Signature: A Date: *If other than owner, must have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this application E DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION F !4� Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): PLANNING DIVISION 1. Briefly describe the proposed project: 1 r-Lo, 6ov"rio 0 6-r E Wray I r?F- t2ac r- f; a 1) 1z'R 0 ( F. t~ -/ a tW 0,4:: 1 t4 7-4. r- I c5 R �fA e-r--s gv- L) M,&At?f t- I C, 0 �r- P-100— i ©LC,e -9 r-L.,) , _A r.712 1 170 -4 01` TA 112,5 , OX 04 4$19 j-,J e -z A4M A) 02 t r7e A/ t3 f Q 1-2 U-IR Z-/ . P"q 6 r 4 1 3rr 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L)): pgy' t-'Q"40 201? f'F' P, � -g7 3. Square footage of Landscape Area: � IF, 4. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing �140ge Proposed �Z% 5. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas. t4 o C d r4- ci. E- F, F,:' TA BEZOMPLETED-'BY APPLICANT' USE ONLY TO" PERZONE -,.,,EX1ST1N6' ',PROROSEDADDITIION'� ;PROPOSED CAL 'T LTERATION: PULATED AND/OA R, % Yards (Setbacks from property line)( L (Section 16-100.020(Y)* Front Rear '0- ft. 1 q ft. Right Side 3' ft, El ft. Left Side H 60 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height (Section 16-30.050)* Wo 01 ft. _J ft. ft. Lot Coverage '75 5, F 2,13 61,31 (snaq 14 (Section 16-30.120(B))* sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area 1 0 % 311 % to �, �q % —71, 1 % -35�6 % 0 s Floor Area [�(Sre�ction r 2- 9 C-9 "i) - I � E40 Z f�o� 1 3 I 6-100.020fl)� sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or detinitions in tree i iouron municipal uouu uf iapLUI 1 0 k4-U1 III ly) DESIGN, REVIEW APPLICATION - MAJOR ADDITIOIN REV 6/2012 T T (2- P. z 6P Lt7 ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING December 28, 2012 Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board RE: 2038 Mar East Street Tiburon, California Dear Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board: I am presenting the following findings in support of variances for side yard setbacks: 1. The special circumstances apply to the rp operty (such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings) that cause a strict application of the zoning regulations to deprive you of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and same or similar zone. This property currently is located on the bay, and a substantial part of the existing building has been built beyond the mean high waterline. Because only 2017 s.f. of the property is considered dry land, the amount of coverage available is only 706 s.f., which is much less than the coverage of the existing building. As a result, even the most modest additions to the existing building would require a variance. 2. Granting of the variance would not result in a special privilege that is inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zone. Almost all the homes on the water - facing side of the street exceed the coverage requirement because of the small amount of dry land. 3. The strict application of the zoning regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self- created hardships shall not be considered. The three areas that are triggering the additional coverage are: (1) The addition of a stairway to the side of the house. This stairway is needed to connect the upper and lower levels. The existing stairway occupies a prime location in this small home and is much better utilized as a living area. Please note that this stairway is to be built over an existing deck, so no landscaped areas are to be covered. (2) The lower bedroom expansions are also on existing covered decks. This minor expansion is required for Mr. Wiltor's day -to -day living, and does not cover any existing landscape areas. (3) There is a small side walkway that allows people coming down the stairs to access the side decks directly without going through a bedroom. Please note that the new upper deck does not contribute to additional coverage, because it sits directly above the lower deck. 1 GATE 6 ROAD, BLDG. A, SUITE G • SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965 @ 415 - 331-04 63 (F T R 2038 Mar East Street December 28, 2012 Page 2 4. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. The new stairwell, the lower bedroom expansions, and the small side walkway provide no significant impact to the views., sunlight, or privacy of the neighbors. Please note that the new upper deck does not require a variance. Many thanks for reviewing these findings. Sincerely, Mohamad Sadrieh HIT TT . B NO L 2015 BRIDGEW AY, SUITE 20 • SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965 ® 415-331-0410 December 28, 2012 Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board RE: 2038 Mar East Street JAN 23 2013 I�1 Tiburon, California PANNING DIVISION Dear Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board: I am presenting the following findings in support of a Floor Area Exception: 1. The visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The two areas where we are proposing to expand this home are the stairwell and the expansion of the bedrooms underneath the house. These modest additions do not substantially add to the perceived mass and bulk of the home. Overall, the proposed home will have a much smaller mass than most of the homes on the street. Please keep in mind that most homes on the water side of the street exceed the F.A.R. due to dry land calculations. 2. The proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and the dimensions of the lot. The two additions in question are compatible with the site and the surroundings. The stairway addition is only 4' -6" wide and does not extend beyond the line of the existing building. The bedroom expansions fill in a covered porch area that is below the existing house, and does not extend beyond the line of the existing building. Both are built where there are existing decks. Many thanks for reviewing these findings. Sincerely, f Mohamad Sadrieh E-1`%H1BTT NO. q i rJ 4'Y 7 1 GATE 6 ROAD, BLDG. A, SUITE G ® SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965 a 415 - 331 -0410 9 415 -331 -3163 (FAX) LATE MAIL # 3 Dr. Peter C. Wilton 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA. 94920, USA Telephone: 1-415-425-5151 e -mail: wilton whaas.berkeley.ed.0 Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board March 6, 2013 RE: 2308 Mar East, Tiburon Dear Dan, DRB Members: 06 1013 Thank you for the copy of the staff report on our planning application, received earlier this week. Naturally, we are delighted to see that the staff report confirms the following: 0 The proposed upper deck involves no increase in floor area or lot coverage, no set-back exceptions, and hence no variances; 0 The affirmative findings on the requested floor area variance. However, we note that staff are unable to find in favor of the "unnecessary hardship" criterion of the requested lot coverage variance. Accordingly, we wish to provide the following commentary in relation to this finding: We believe the proposed plan is in full accord with the intent of the lot coverage statute; namely, to prevent unreasonable over-building of an appropriately zoned residential lot. With one minor exception, the requested increase in lot coverage does not increase the footprint of the home in any way. The proposed modifications retain the existing vertical and lateral dimensions of the existing structure. The only exception to this is a new small (3') walkway adjoining two existing decks on the lower level of the home. 2. To deny the lot coverage variance will indeed impose "unnecessary hardship". The central issue in the lot coverage requirement is the unique nature of the topography describing our property. As the DRB is well aware, many waterfront properties along Mar East have extremely limited dry land area which renders compliance with lot coverage requirements virtually impossible. Indeed, our own property has an available dry land area of only 2,017 square feet. Strict compliance with the lot coverage requirement in the context of this irregular topography would result in a dwelling of no more than 706 square feet of coverage. ,HIBTT 6t Nonetheless, we hope to make two relatively minor changes to the design of the house in order to provide a more functional living space. These changes, both of which are covered under the same tot coverage impact, are: (i) Relocation of an existing internal stair well to provide greater privacy to both ourselves and our neighbors; (ii) Enclosing an existing exterior entrance way to provide better protection from inclement weather and to mitigate noise intrusion on our neighbors. Whilst other possibilities exist for modifying the home to achieve these objectives, most would require either an expansion of the footprint of the existing dwelling, or a substantial change in the layout, size and functionality of interior rooms. 3. Substantial precedent exists for providing the lot coverage variance for reasons similar to those we are requesting. Based upon discussions with Tiburon Council, we are attempting to improve our property without expanding beyond the envelope of the existing dwelling. We do not believe this is a condition imposed regularly on properties within Tiburon in general, or Mar East in particular, as we intend to show in our presentation to the Board this week. Other properties in Tiburon have been granted floor area exceptions that involve considerable expansion of the envelope of the dwelling structure, for reasons analogous to those we are requesting. 4. The lot coverage requirement has questionable applicability to waterfront residences in Belvedere and Tiburon. The lot coverage requirement can easily be circumvented by constructing the bulk of the structure over the water, thereby obviating the dry land coverage issue. This is precisely the situation of the property at 2306 Mar East, the immediately adjoining neighboring property. This home has a total developed area of 4,900 square feet, only 486 square feet of which is on dry land, resulting in an under-represented lot coverage of 25%. We trust this information sheds further light on the requested lot coverage variance. Naturally, we look forward to discussing the application with the full Board this Thursday. In the interim, we again invite the Board to visit the property at their convenience. We would be happy to assist in this regard. Thank you in anticipation of your consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Peter C. Wilton T-TTBIT NO - t /-- i 01 OP t 2308 Mar East, Tiburon - Design Perspectives - March 7, 2013 History of the Applicatior The Scope of the Revise Proposed Works i Response to Staff Report Findings Response to Neighbor Commentary I3 E-l"tHTBIT NO..- t 2- R e C)C-- q5 History • the Application The Scope of the Revised Proposed Works lf Response to Staff Report Findings Response to Neighbor Commentary History of the Application Three Separate CURB Hearings 1. December 1, 2011 2. May 3, 2012 3. June 7, 2012 Extensive Direct Engagemen with Neighbors i Intermediated Engagement with Neighbors E 7' 1,M1BTT NO. 1.2- ?_ q O-F- qq Project Approved Unanimously by DRB on June 7, 2012 Overturned on Appeal to Town Council • August 15, 2012 Subsequent Discussions with Neighbors in December 2012/January 2013 a The Scope of the Revised Proposed Works Iff" Response to Staff Report Findings Iff' Response to Neighbor Commentary I. TI. H IL B T ;I IT NO. Scope of Proposed Works The Design Objective To create a family home allowing for: Aging in place (single-floor access to kitchen, bath, bedroom, living, dining room) Family growth Continued research /writi n,T E N71-11BIT NO -1111 F3 Scope of Proposed Works 1. Finishing an existing unfinished storage room 2. Updating the general exterior and interior layout of the home, including: ® re-locating internal stairway enclosing an existing uncovered entrance way partially enclosing an existing porch '7' 3. Adding an upper-level deck above an existing lower-level deck.... all within the existing footprint of the house E N71-11BIT NO -1111 F3 NO F, (2- 6-F-qcc 11" History of the Applicatior The Scope of the Revised Proposed Works Response to Staff Report Findings Response to Neighbor Commentary E IBIT NO. P, 13 of q7 Staff ReDort: Key Findings Upper Deck 1. The upper deck is not an expansion of the existing building footprint of the property 2. The upper deck does not require variances in relation to: m floor area lot coverage set-back requirements No variance is being requested for the upper deck E IBIT NO. P, 13 of q7 II 71,1111-BT Staff Report: Key Findings Floor Area Exception 1. A floor area variance is required for the following improvements (240 s.f.): m enclosure of existing entrance way & relocation of interior stairwell partial enclosure of existing porch 2. "...there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception." L----------------------- II 71,1111-BT Staff Report: Key Findings Lot Coverage Exception 1. A lot coverage exception is required for: a lower level deck walkway the relocation of the interior stairwell 2. The findings for the lot coverage variance can be made in relation to: special circumstances no special privileges non injury to other property II 71,1111-BT staff Report: Key Findings Lot Coverage Exception 3. Staff have raised questions about the unnecessary hardship" finding for the lot coverage variance. We wish to respond to this finding as follows...... proposed plans specifically retain the Staff Report: Key Findings Lot Coverage Exception The proposed plans adhere to the intent of the lot coverage statute, and strict application will create unnecessary hardship. Per discussions with Council, the proposed plans specifically retain the existing footprint of the property and do not increase over-building. Neighboring Dwelling Sizes (s.f.) 6,000 5,000 - 4,000 Relative Size Ranking of 2308-, M Square with Approved lmprpoy�ements 3,000 4 1A I Footage 2,000 4- -f t-T 1,000 - 0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 Property No. E-� 'TT -T 1 Staff Report: Key Findings Lot Coverage Exception Strict application of the lot coverage statute will indeed impose "unnecessary hardship 11' Unique topography of waterfront property Extremely limited dry land area (2,017 s.f.) vs Iota lot size of approximately 11,000 s.f. Strict compliance imposes highly restrictive coverage (706 s.f.), without increasing height E-� 'TT -T 1 I Staff Report: Key Findings i t Strict application of the lot I coverage statute will indeed impose "unnecessary hardship ". Functional and privacy objectives Increased functionality I Increased aesthetics I Increased privacy and reduced noise intrusion im Protection from inclement weather Difficult to meet these objectives without either: expansion of the footprint of the existing dwelling, or a substantial change in the layout, size and I functionality of interior rooms. a I TT NO. IZ- C>F- MA Staff Report: Key Findings Lot Coverage Exception I The lot coverage requirement has questionable applicability to waterfront residences in Belvedere and Tiburon. The lot coverage requirement can easily be circumvented by constructing the bulk of the structure over the water, thereby I by- passing the dry land coverage issue. TT NO. IZ- C>F- MA Approximate dry land area, neighboring property 611161EMOBIMI Total Developed Area: 4,900 s.f. Dry Land Area: 486 s.f. (approx.) Lot Coverage: 25% This low lot coverage is entirely due to location of dwelling structure which is almost entirely over water, therefore excluded from lot coverage calculation. Staff Report: Key Findings Lot Coverage Exception Restrictive advice of Council to remain within existing footprint Precedent exists for providing the lot coverage variances for reasons similar to those requested E'ZK1 IEUB IT NO Staff Report: Key Findings iI Variance Precedents 2334 Mar East, File #298020 Site Plan and Architectural Review for an Addition to a Single Family Home: Variance to Exceed Lot Coverage; Front Yard & Side Yard Encroachment into Setbacks: FAR Exception September 3, 1998 Alternatives to providing the stairway and entry that would not require a variance could result in a practical difficulty due to the existing room layouts and sizes. It is noted that the plans submitted for the project show an alternate spiral staircase that could provide an interior connection to the main and lower levels, in lieu of the conventional stairway proposed. The spiral stairway would encroach an additional one foot into the side yard setback, approximately 2.5 feet from the property line. E'ZK1 IEUB IT NO Staff Report: Key Findings iI variance Precedents 2334 Mar East, File #298020 Site Plan and Architectural Review for an Addition to a Single Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback, Excess Lot Coverage, and a Floor Area Exception Approved, January 18, 2001 The proposed improvements would add weather protection for pedestrians walking to the house. The strict application of the front yard setback and lot coverage requirements would result in an unnecessary hardship by prohibiting weather protection which is present for most residences in Tiburon. E'ZK1 IEUB IT NO Staff Report: Key Findings Variance Precedents 2108 & 2110 Mar East; FILE #20108 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Two-Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback, Excess Lot Coverage, and Reduced Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, and a Floor Area Exception. Approved, September 20, 2001 ...the strict application of the front yard setback and lot coverage requirements would force the entire structure to the center of the site, resulting in a design in which only garages would be visible from the street. These constraints would eliminate a central pedestrian access for the two dwelling units, which would result in a practical difficulty for the applicant. Staff Report: Key Findings Variance Precedents 2120 Mar East; File #20240 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Two-Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback, Excess Lot Coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. Approved January 16, 2003 The strict application of the front yard setback and lot coverage requirements would force the entire structure to the center of the site, resulting in a more compact building design. However, the size of this property is less than the minimum lot size in the R-2 zone, which is a physical characteristic that would create a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in complying with these zoning standards. tITT 1PTO, E" 21 el-_ c',5? Staff Report: Key Findings Variance Precedents 116 Lyford Drive; File #21217 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single- Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage (Approved 3-0: November 15, 2012) The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would force the house design to become more vertical and would potentially intrude into the views from several nearby residences. This design constraint poses a practical difficulty for the applicant and the design changes to comply with this lot coverage requirement would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. tITT 1PTO, E" 21 el-_ c',5? staff Re or . e Findings Y Variance Precedents 673 Hawthorne Drive; File #20711 Site Plan and Architectural Review to Construct Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Rear Setback and Excess Lot Coverage Approved 4-0: June 7, 2007 The strict application of the lot coverage requirement would force the design of the addition to be more vertical, likely resulting in increased view impacts for uphill neighbors. tITT 1PTO, E" 21 el-_ c',5? E �7HTBTT NO. 12- F- 14't Staff Report: Key Findings Variance Precedents 2070 Paradise Drive; File #21224 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback, Excess Lot Coverage and Excess Building Height, and a Floor Area Exception I Approved 4-0: February 21, 2013 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 that would not be anchored into the hillside. The strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement for this property would II leave the applicant with a 1,173 square foot building footprint, which would create a practical difficulty in designing a new home of any size on a steeply sloping site. The site topography also creates practical difficulties in complying with the maximum building height requirement for a house due to the distance from the street level to the grade below. E �7HTBTT NO. 12- F- 14't inng Staff Report: Key di s Variance Precedents 43 Upper North Terrace; File #20622 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of I Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling, With Variances for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks and Excess Lot Coverage Approved 4-0: June 7, 2007 The strict application of the lot coverage requirements for a lot of this size would require any physical improvements to the existing structure to be placed either on a second story which could create view impacts on nearby homes or in an excavated area with little or no light to the living space...... The imposition of these requirements would severely limit the size and placement of improvements on the site, creating a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship on the applicants. II E �7HTBTT NO. 12- F- 14't History of the Application The Scope of the Revised Proposed Works M' Response to Stayff Report Findings Response to Neighbor Commentary E'-17EUBTTNO- I e, Z-3 t>pq� Staff Report: Key Findings Variance Precedents 4755 Paradise Drive; File #21218 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single- Family Dwelling, with Variances for Excess Lot Coverage and Reduced Front Yard Setback Approved, February 21, 2013 The strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would force the house design to become more vertical and be more visually prominent when viewed from Paradise Drive. These design constraints pose a practical difficulty for the applicant and the design changes to comply with these requirements would result in an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. History of the Application The Scope of the Revised Proposed Works M' Response to Stayff Report Findings Response to Neighbor Commentary E'-17EUBTTNO- I e, Z-3 t>pq� Neighbor Commentary Neighbor Commentary Neighbors from adjoining properties continue to express concerns relating to deck placement, acoustics, and lighting. In separate meetings with neighbors following the Town Council appeal, both neighbors were explicitly invited to make concrete suggestions for a revised design. No suggestions were forthcoming. Neighbor Commentary The current proposed design is a direct result of many prior suggestions made by our neighbors prior to final DRB review, including: dramatically reduced project scale containment within the existing footprint m open plan living area a upper side deck ____-__ TNO Neighbor Commentary The practical implication of neighbors' current objections is to confine the occupants of 2308 to a cocooned life within the interior of the existing dwelling without access to the privileges enjoyed by virtually all others in the Old Tiburon community ____-__ TNO T 7 TD T T TJ L7 Z& C)(-- qq --'NTT 7 T' f'�i II NO. L2 ?, -?--? o C-- Ulli 2,b O-C- LO Historical Record: Lot Line Adjustment Adverse Impacts on 2308: x / Original 1. Sub-standard side yard Lot Line 2. Reduced dry land area Revised Lot Line Requested by A 'Y Owner of 2310 & % Granted by Town of Tiburon in ` } 1971 - 2 3 Adverse Impact on 2310: Reduced separation from 2308_--.. 2308 /V263 !u[tUPU/6 %r-P;JT-']ZTT TNI 0, .2- 2_q c>f-- q(t' III ��� I III llljj� izw- mill I I I 0:111 lill'sill • EMBE Relative Profiles, Neighboring Properties Z- 37 6F 47 `-7 �TTTYYrP (2- NO� F 1 3 3 br- 4 Ir- 4R, jWff `-7 �TTTYYrP (2- NO� F 1 3 3 br- 4 Ir- Me= kz �, 3q bF-q iZ, - =0 If! 1111 E-O"Z- osimm �, 3 car= Pr �7C> Fgl T. 3a>c>r-4q I Iz- NO,, Fo qb vi= LLCI 1-0 '7 - IS -1 J-3 T T p� 4( &Fq5 Relative Deck Proximities, Neighboring Properties Relative Profiles, Neighboring Properties 11-- IF \ � j I , ` 7 IDF NO. 12- Ej-- I-ZL p, q3 6F q� 17 -'Z7 Ps —Lth— JI OF r Concluding Observations The proposed improvements respect the i advice of Council and neighbors to remain within the footprint of the p � existing residence The upper deck does not require variances in relation to: floor area lot coverage set -back requirements No variance is being requested for the upper deck I E 'T NT F, q vF- 47 Findings can be made to support a floor area variance on the requested improvements Findings can be made to support a lot coverage variance, with the possible exception of unnecessary hardship. jr Reasonable ground and prior precedent exists for making the unnecessary hardship finding NO. Li tT� Concluding Observations Notwithstanding neighbor commentary, the proposed improvements are entirely consistent with prevailing development including improvements and existing structures associated with immediately adjoining properties Il' Approval of the application will afford the owners of 2308 privileges currently denied, but enjoyed by virtually all other property owners in Old Tiburon NO. Li tT� 13 Dear Design Review Board: Good evening. My name is Peter Wilton of 2308 Mar East. Please accept my sincere apologies for not being able to attend this evening's DRB meeting in person. Having only returned from overseas yesterday, I am now unfortunately confined to bed with a temporary illness that prevents me from attending. Thank you for your understanding. Please allow me to provide the comments in relation to our application. As can be seen from the revised application, we continue to make MAJOR amendments and compromises to our original plan. This is now our fifth appearance before the Board. On each occasion we have made significant changes to our application to reflect the input of the Board, the Town Council and our neighbors. We have finally reached the point where we feel that any further significant changes to the design will render the project too unattractive to proceed. We are therefore kindly asking the Board to approve the plan before you without further major amendment, recognizing the following: 1. A major concession in the revised plan is the removal of the proposed upper deck above our existing lower deck. This is a major change that impacts the core essence of our application and is one we consider to be a major compromise. We have not made this decision lightly. Our consultations with neighbors at 2306 Mar East have unfortunately been clouded with a continued threat of aggressive action against all items not meeting their approval. To mitigate this threat, we have decided to remove the deck from the current application, but wish to specifically note our right to re -visit this issue on a future application. 2. In accordance with comments from neighbors and the Town, we have further modified the design to achieve two objectives: a. First, create the feeling of an open airspace within our main living area. This has been achieved through the limited use of nano doors along the south -west corner of the living room. We ask the Board to note the following about this design. L The section of nano doors on the western wall is the only opening glazing along the entire upper wall. Our neighbors have asked that all glazing along this wall be fixed. This is a request which we consider � c L4 0 F tq unreasonable. We respectfully ask whether any Board member would personally consider it reasonable in their own homes tobedenied opening glazing along one entire wall, especially when all other design requirements have been met? ii' The section of nano doors along the southern wall has been limited to20 feet. This is a significant reduction from our most recent plan, which allowed for nano-walls along the entire length of the wall. iii. This design will allow our living room to serve asa surrogate deck, although one which clearly does not allow direct access to overhead sunshine and other beneficial elements of an outdoor environment. We consider any reduction in the area of open window space toseverely compromise the functionality and intrinsic enjoyment of this surrogate deck. b' The second objective of the current modifications has been to limit the total amount uf glazing in the proposed design to appreciably no more than the existing glazing area. 3. Since it has been raised by our neighbors, we would like to further address the issue of noise intrusion. First is the question of reasonableness and fairness. VVe ask you to note that both our neighbors have unrestricted access to open air decks and patios, some areas of which immediately abut the boundaries of our property. These areas are regularly used b» our neighbors without regard to noise impacts on our home. VVe ask you to note that any regular noise emanating from our house will be interior noise, dampened by walls, ceiling, furniture and other objects. Second, the practical noise impacts of the proposed design are severely limited. Given the prevailing weather conditions of waterfront properties along Mar East, it is extremely unlikely that any doors mrwindows will remain open during the evenings when the temperatures are cool, thereby eliminating noise impacts onto the bedrooms at either neighboring property entirely. Third, and perhaps most important, any noise emanating from inside our home will be further mitigated by glass safety ba|ustradingto regulation height along the entire length of the proposed nano-door openings. This balustrading effectively halves the open space through which any noise might transmit and further reflects any noise back \7 �J�� `�,________ �� inside the house, rather than towards neighbors. In effect, the noise would be equivalent to an open window, not a full ceiling to floor door opening. 4. Finally, we wish to comment on the consultation process surrounding our application. We have consulted extensively with our neighbors on this project for more than 18 months, including multiple discussions this week right up until today's meeting, in search of an acceptable design. As we hope is evident from the many revisions to our application, we have made major revisions to our plan at every step, such that the current plan represents little more than a "cosmetic" overhaul of the existing property. This is far from our original design concept, one endorsed by both the DRB and the Town as an architecturally merit - worthy design with significant benefits to all stakeholders. However, we are frustrated by the continuing instability in this consultation process. Each time we have embraced suggestions made by our neighbors, and incorporated them into our plan, we have subsequently learned to our dismay that these changes are no longer considered acceptable. The consultation process has led to a progressive narrowing of the scope and functionality of the project, to which there seems to be no limit, all clouded with an air of intimidation and threat. We respectfully ask that the Board assist in bringing an end to this instability and provide a fair and reasonable assessment of this extensive effort at consultation. Thank you for your consideration. We welcome your comments and questions. M U T NO. �Z P, 47 o r- Feb. 26,2013 FEB 2 ?013 Dear Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, LPLAN['q1N'('!, D!V!�-',Jot,� We are writing to voice our significant concern regarding the plans submitted by the owners of 2308 Mar East Street. Our major concern centers around the violation of our acoustic privacy in our master bedroom and second bedroom, as a direct result of three new design elements. These three new design elements constitute, (1) a new deck addition at the upper level, (2) the raising and expansion of the deck at the lower level, and (3) the complete transformation of the upper floor living space into outdoor space. The two decks (points 1 and 2) are located on the side which faces our home and within very close proximity of our two bedrooms. We are disappointed that the Applicant has chosen to appear before you without giving us a chance to review his plans with him and his architect, which would be in keeping with the direction the Town Council gave us on August 15th. The first time we had a chance to see the new plans was when we were offered copies by the Tiburon Planning Department staff, after the application had been filed and the DRB hearing date was set. As you know, we appeared in front of the Tiburon Town Council on August 15, 2012, to appeal the plans of 2308 Mar East. In response to our appeal, the Town Council concluded that: Ilan expansion project could be designed without expanding outside the existing building envelope that would reduce project impacts on the Appellants." The Town Council further concluded that "not every home in this neighborhood will be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity if such improvements would result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties. Such differences were not necessarily a hardship." In granting our appeal, the Town Council stated that "The Appellants and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works towards that compromise". At the conclusion of that meeting and while we were still in the meeting room, we approached the Applicants from 2308 Mar East to tell them that we would be eager and willing to work with them and their architect on a new design, and that next time their application appeared in front of the Tiburon Design Review Board, we hoped to speak in support of their application, not in opposition. It was with that spirit of cooperation that we left the meeting on August 15th, 2012, Later in October, we thought we would be meeting with the Applicant and his architect to discuss the new plans. Instead our meeting was brief, without the architect and without plans. The Applicant said that they were in brainstorming mode, and asked if we would support a new upper deck between our two homes. We clearly told the Applicant that we could not support such a new deck, since the negative acoustic privacy impact to both our bedrooms would be very substantial, evidenced by the acoustic and lighting impact from the existing lower deck. We were assured that we would be notified as soon as the Applicant's architect had some new design proposals for our input. We are sorry that we have to appear for the fifth time in front of a Town decision- making body to oppose the Applicant's plans. Back in December of 2011, when K"HIBIT NO. o(-- 2- the Applicant first came in front of the Design Review Board with plans that included the expansion of the existing deck between our two homes, we voiced our clear opposition to that expansion and addition of any decks between our homes because of the injurious privacy and lighting impacts to both our master and second bedrooms. We stated that the light and conversation from any additional outside living space between the two homes would have a very significant impact on both of our bedrooms evidenced by the fact that we can hear conversations from the current lower deck and are negatively impacted when the lights are turned on. Based on this input, the DRB directed the Applicant to eliminate the side deck expansion between our two homes. It is very discouraging to see a new side deck facing our house back in the Applicant's plans, extending 3 feet into the side-yard setback. The outside living noise in such close proximity to our two bedrooms will be injurious to our ability to sleep. Furthermore, this new upper deck is placed right across from the only windows that can be opened in our master bedroom area, exasperating the negative acoustic impact of the new living room deck. We also oppose the raising of the lower deck by 2 feet or more and the addition of the triangular deck extension at the lower level, since these changes will bring the activity, acoustics and light from the lower deck even closer to our bedrooms, making a difficult situation worse. In an environment where the separation is very tight, raising the deck level by a couple of feet represents a significant percentage of change. The third element that will be injurious to our acoustic privacy is the rear living room wall that can be completely opened up end-to-end, allowing all the sounds and conversation from the living and dining room to come outside. The fact that all three areas mentioned here are over water means that we cannot grow any vegetation as acoustic screens and have the further exasperating effect of sound waves reflecting off the water, making the acoustics worse. In summary, we believe that the negative acoustic impact from the new living room deck, the raising and expansion of the lower deck, and a complete wall of doors in the rear of the building that fully open up will be injurious to our acoustic privacy, significantly impacting our ability to sleep in our two bedrooms. As we have asked in the past, we again ask that the entry use clerestory windows, keeping the top row of windows and eliminating the second row and that the sliding glass doors at the lower level be converted into solid doors to reduce the lighting infringement into our private courtyard and second bedroom. We encourage you to visit us to see the impact of the proposed design from our home. We will be available on Wednesday March 6th and Thursday March 7th. You can reach us via email at my_yesil@yahoo.com or by phone at 650 -400- 4080. We restate our willingness to work with the Applicant on his plans with hopes that a solution can be reached that will satisfy all. Thank you, Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil MXr-HIBIT NO. �, 2 OF2- To the Tiburon Design Review Board, FF 2 2013 P L A February 26, 2013 We are writing in regards to the proposed project at 2308 Mar East. We received plans from the Planning Department, and after close inspection of the available details, have two main concerns: The proposed use of `accordion' style collapsible windows will open the living areas facing the water entirely, and present a tremendous acoustic intrusion. Of course, the windows will not be retracted at all times, but when they are (and this is unpredictable), the effect will be pronounced. On the upper level, the proposed open -air dining room / great room will be eight feet from our master bedroom. On the lower level, the proposed master bedroom will be eight feet from our living room. The impact of being able to hear every word in a conversation at this proximity is very significant. We have not had the opportunity to discuss this with the applicant, as we were not consulted on the submitted plans. There are many potential solutions to this element, and we would respectfully request that the Board give this issue careful scrutiny. The fact that the home is directly on the water poses unique challenges with respect to light. These come in two forms: Direct light impact from interior lighting, and reflected light impact from the sun. The submitted plans call for nearly the entire water - facing facade to be comprised of glass - every living space will be enclosed by an accordion style window. The result is that every interior lighting fixture will illuminate the adjacent properties, and the windows, "glass guardrails ", and water will all combine to pose reflected sunlight challenges throughout the day. These effects need careful consideration due to the location of the property and the proximity to adjacent properties. As has been well documented in the public discourse on this project, we on Mar East live in extremely close proximity to each other. Because of this fact, the changes that are being proposed will have adverse impact to the main living spaces of our home. Again, we have not been approached to comment on these issues, and remain open and willing to do so. We are hopeful that through collaborative discourse a solution can be reached that satisfies the needs of all parties. We will make our home available until the Design Review Board meeting. Please feel free to contact us by phone - (858) 245 -1530, or email - kulikl @mac.com Respectfully submitted, David and Kathryn Kulik 2310 Mar East EM'JIBIT NO.-4- n-j Zn Dan Wafrous From: Magdalena Yes| .cum Sent: Thursday, April 11.20138:15AM To: K8eQdek*no Yeoi|; Jim Wiuhett; DonVVatroue Subject: Our letter ho the DRB for the April 18th Hearing on23O8 Mar East April 11.2013 Dear Design Review Board Members, We want to open by clarifying what we mean by negative privacy impacts regarding the design at 2308 Mar East, since there appeared to be some misunderstanding on this at the last DRB meeting by Boardmembers who had not visited our home. The major privacy impact of the proposed design is to our acoustic privacy. Our two functional bedrooms face 2308. All of the additions and developments that require a variance to be issued by the DRB are on our side of 2308, bringing 2308 closer to us and turing the current quiet and undeveloped spaces and into active traffic zones with noise impacts to our Even though the lot coverage variance requested by the Applicant sounds minor, going from 68% lot coverage to 71 % coverage, at the current coverage of 68% coverage, 2308 is already very overbuilt for the size of its lot. Even in the most aggressive development communities in Southern California, such as Newport Beach where overbuilt homes exist because of zoning allowing lot coverages of 50-60%, the current house at 2308 at 68% lot coverage would be way overbuilt even for Newport Beach. This fact was specifically discussed at the Tiburon Town Council meeting and is reflected in the meeting's minutes. Thus granting a Variance to 2308 for even more square footage, which is already at almost double the allowed lot coverage (current 68% versus zoned 35%) would create a precedence and would significantly change the nature of the whole Mar East Neighborhood, resulting in a series of overbuilt homes with major privacy issues. Our Neighborhood does not want this and will work hard to maintain the character of Mar VVe believe, like the Planning Staff has stated \nnumerous reports, that the Applicant should be able to remodel within the current square footage and floor area ratios the house already has. The design elements needing the additional square footage requiring the variance, such ae the new downstairs bedroom \n the current storage area, the conversion of the lower deck into o bedroom, the expanded entry and stairway, the additional side yard walkway and deck with increased g|gzinQ, and the raising and expansion of the lower deck are all concentrated onour side of23OO, These expansions of sq. footage bring 23O8closer ho our house and increase traffic circulation, noise, light and glazing having significant injurious impacthothe000ustio privacy of our bedrooms. Furthermore, the introduction of new Nana Walls at the upper floor which are concentrated on our side nf23Q8ioaeverelv - T��������T�P�J�� injurious. TheNanoVVu|}sfacingusonthoa\deyandrep|aoethe����������� �v��. 4/ll/20l1 Page 2 of 3 current non - operating windows and bring living room noises directly towards are bedrooms. The Nana Walls over the Bay are placed on our side of 2308 instead of the middle of the living room, exposing us to the negative acoustic impact of living and entertainment noises to our master bedroom. The Nana Wall elements are extremely injurious to our acoustic privacy and our ability to sleep in our bedrooms. In the Town Council Resolution to our earlier appeal, Resolution No. 29- 2012, on page 3 the Council stated: "WHEREAS, the Town Council further concluded that the Mar East Street waterfront is an eclectic area, and that privacy will likely always be an issue in this neighborhood. However, differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity if such improvements would result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties. Such differences were not necessarily a hardship. The Town Council stated that there would appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and that the Appellants and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works towards that compromise" and voted 5 -0 to grant our appeal. The Town Council is specific in saying that the Hardship argument cannot be made to grant a variance based on differences in homes. In other words, there is no evidence of hardship to warrant an increase in lot size coverage to take it from the already overbuilt 68% coverage to an even higher 71 % coverage, even if 2308 does not enjoy some of the features that other homes in the neighborhood have. The Council has made this very clear, which is consistent with the Planning Staff Reports on 2308, where time and again the Planning Staff has said that they cannot make the Findings on Hardship required to grant a variance. The Applicant's justification for his submitted design and his presentations in the DRB hearings have been based on comparing his home to others, but the Council clearly states that these comparisons cannot be used to justify a Hardship to grant a variance. The Council is also clearly saying that improvements that result in substantial privacy impacts to surrounding properties cannot be supported. The design in front of you has very significant privacy impacts to us and based on the Town Council's direction, should not be approved based on the Council's guidance. Notwithstanding this backdrop, and in the spirit of compromise that the Town Council and DRB have requested, we have articulated the design elements that if eliminated, would result in our supporting this project. To this end, after the last DRB hearing, in good faith, we initiated a meeting with the Applicant to come to resolution on the proposed design of 2308 Mar East. We suggested that the Applicant follow the direction that the DRB was guiding towards at the conclusion of the March 7th meeting and incorporate the following changes to gain our support: a. Delete the upper side deck facing our home b. Eliminate the upper level Nana Walls facing us and maintain the non- operational picture windows in size and location c. Place the Nana Walls or sliding doors opening over the water at the central part of the living room, not at the corner closest to us, thus shielding both neighbors on both sides from noise with 10 feet of fixed panels at the two corners. d Maintain the lower deck facing our home at the existing level, and not raise it e. At the entry, keep only the upper level windows and eliminate the lower EXLHIBIT NO.—&— All >i ?ni11 row (clerestory windows) f. For the new bedroom addition, reduce the glazing nf the sliding doors by using French sliding doors with timber elements. g. Eliminate the new side yard deck and walkway addition and its glazing Although the Applicant has incorporated the first change the DRB suggested at the March 7 meeting (eliminating the upper side dack).he has ignored the other changes the DRB discussed, even though hahad verbally agreed ho some during the ORB meeting. Examples ofthese elements which the Applicant agreed hu but which are now not incorporated into the new design are: not raising the lower deck, not turning the sliding doors of the new addition bedroom at the lower level into French sliding doors that reduce the glazing, not implementing clerestory windows at the entry, and not eliminating the second lower level of windows. VVe believe the design changes that the DRB was guiding towards inthe March meeting and that we are requesting in this letter are overy reasonable compromise, considering that the Applicant ia asking for olot coverage variance and floor area exception to add to what is alreadymn overbuilt home otS896 lot coverage. The negative impact on our acoustic privacy from the changes that will ba brought upon uo with the granting of this variance need tobe mitigated. VVe support the DR8in the direction it was giving the Applicant inthe|astmeeUngandaskthotthiaopp|icoUon be continued until the changes articulated above are /ncotponat*d into the submitted plans for 2308 Mar East. VVe encourage you visit our home to personally evaluate the negative privacy impact vva will experience ifthe current submitted plans are approved. Please contact usatG50400408Oto arrange e time for your visit. We thank you for your time and attention. Magdalena YeoU and Jim VVickett 23OG Mar East SL Tiburon 4/ll/7011 Page 3 of 3 / E z MI.BIT �» �J���� �--��---- Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous LAIL. From: Magdalena Yesil [my _yesil @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:06 AM To: Dan Watrous s Subject: Email for Vice - Chairman Chong and Boardmember Tollini Dear Vice - Chairman Chong and Boardmember Tollini, Your decision on 2308 Mar East this Thursday night will have a significant effect on our ability to sleep in our two bedrooms. We respectfully urge you to visit our home at 2306 Mar East prior to the meeting, since you have not yet had a chance to visit and view the impact of this design on us. Thank you, Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil 650 - 400 -4080 RX j.z.,HIBTT NOXT 4/1 6001 � 18 April 2013 To the Design Review Board: We are writing in regard to the project at 2308 Mar East. Since the last DRB meeting on March 71h of this year, we have had multiple engagements with the owner's representative. In these conversations, we have been told that changes that were made were mistakenly not included in the submitted plans. Additional changes to the plans have been discussed as a result of our input, and our understanding is that they are to be reflected in the plans. However, as of this writing, we have not seen the revisions incorporated, and therefore cannot comment one way or the other, as we are not sure what exactly is being proposed. Regardless, we have two specific comments at this time- First, there is a chimney structure on the Eastern side of the house that serves no purpose, as the fireplace it serves is being moved and that area is being converted to a kitchen. Accordingly, we would ask that this chimney be removed. This item was noted in the Staff Report for the last DRB meeting (as well as the Report for this meeting), and we discussed it with the DRB Chairwoman, who had the same concern. However the chimney was never addressed during the March 7th DRB proceedings. We ask that this issue be specifically addressed when the Board deliberates the project. Our second comment is a restatement of an earlier concern. On the submitted plans, property that is not part of 2308 Mar East is depicted in a way that shows it as being organic to that property. We are requesting that the stairs depicted on the Eastern side of the 2308 structure be formally and specifically excluded from anything that might be approved, as they are not part of the 2308 property. Respectfully submitted, David and Kathryn Kulik 2310 Mar East TT 31S IBIT N1 PETER B. BREKFIUS 1)eterb@breklius.com ELIZABETH BREKHUS elizabethb@breklitts.com Brekhus Law Partners AT'T'ORNEYS Al" LAW October 1, 2013 Manor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 1000 DRAKES LANDING ROAD GREENBRAE, CA 94904-3027 FACSIMILE: (415) 461-7356 (415) 461-1001 www.brekhus.com RE C."VE IV' rE9!,", OCT - 3 2913 TCM MANAGERS 0�-h,; TOWN OF TBURON Re: 2308 Mar East, Tiburon (Application for Design Review Approval) Dear Mayor O'Donnell and Town Council Members: On behalf of Dr. Peter Wilton and his family trust, Mar East Realty LLC, we offer this letter in support of the application for design review for the above referenced project. The application and approval granted by the Tiburon Design Review Board has been appealed by Jim Wickert and Magdalena Yesil of 2306 Mar East, and is therefore set for a public hearing at the regular meeting of the Town Council on October 16, 2013. As the Council will recall, this matter was previously before the Council on August 15, 2012. Appellants argued at that time that the applicant's project, which proposed a deck expansion and kitchen expansion, impacted their privacy. At the Council hearing on August 15, 2012, the Council granted the appeal and directed the applicant to continue consultations with neighbors in search of a mutually agreeable design. The applicant did continue to consult with neighbors, pursuing ng design options that had been suggested by both the appellants and -members of Council in earlier discussions, but unfortunately the appellants have until now continued to object to all such proposals without offering any compromise design that was acceptable to them. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a revised plan to DIRB in March of 2013. To expedite approval of the project, the revised plan removed the original kitchen expansion and ENKHIBIT Mayor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Town of Tiburon October 1, 2013 Page 2 the original deck extension entirely. Instead, the revised plan proposed a new upper deck located directly above the existing lower side deck so that the upper deck stayed within the existing footprint of the residence. A deck addition was a core design feature of the project and intended to take advantage of the spectacular views and create useable outside living space, which is a feature of every other property along Mar East. This revised upper deck addition was proposed because (1) the Council directed the applicant to stay within the existing envelope of the residence and comments by Council members indicated some kind of deck expansion was not unreasonable; (2) the new upper deck did not require any variances; and (3) in discussions with the applicant and his architect, the appellants had specifically proposed that the original deck be redesigned in this manner. Notwithstanding this prior representation by the appellants that such a design was acceptable to them, the appellants continued to oppose the modified design and argued that it negatively impacted their privacy. Parenthetically, members of the DRB appeared conflicted over the advice of Council emanating from the August 15, 2012 appeal. At least two DRB members expressed the view that Council had "tied their hands" with respect to improvements that imposed any adverse impacts on neighbors. We are confident this was not the intent of Council. Nonetheless, once again, in order to expedite the application, the applicant removed the proposed upper deck and substantially modified other aspects of the application, retaining only the interior improvements, a new walkway to an existing deck that is raised to grade level, and a plan to replace certain sections of existing floor to ceiling windows with glass nana-walls. In addition, a portion of an existing porch at the lower level of the home is enclosed as living space. On April 18, 2013, this revised plan was unanimously approved by the DRB. The DRB considered the objections of appellants and rejected them. This appeal follows. Mr. Wickert and Ms. Yesil object on the basis that the project will result in light emanating from the applicant's property to the appellants' property, and have asserted an additional basis for appeal, which they describe as acoustical privacy. It is important to note that these two properties are a minimum of eighteen feet apart, with Dr. Wilton's property fully conforming to zoning side yard setback requirements. The appellant's property, on the E-N71HIBIT 11,101. Mayor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Town of Tiburon October 1, 2013 Page 3 other hand, has side yard setbacks adjoining Dr. W-111--on's property as short as five feet. Appellants' argument that they are negatively impacted by improvements to the applicant's residence must be placed in the context that the proximity of the residences is due to the nonconforming feature existing on the appellants' own property. A certain amount of noise and light will be heard and seen by each neighbor as a result of their proximity. Just as the applicant purchased their property, understanding that the properties were close together, so did the appellants. The appellants' position does not appear to recognize this fact, and appears to be that any change to their present experience of the applicant's property is unacceptable. The appellants' argument is directed in part to the enclosure of the timber entrance walkway on the appellants' side of the property. This enclosure, however, improves privacy, given that guests entering 2308 Mar East no longer need to walk the length of a wooden deck to the applicant's front door, and instead the entry path is shortened and thus the noise of guests entering will be closer to the street and away from the water or appellants' bedrooms. in addition, the Staff Report for the March 7, 2013 DRB hearing noted that this existing walkway is visible "from few vantage points" at 2306 Mar East and "would appear to minimize any visual privacy impacts on the neighboring residence." The appellants appear to misunderstand the direction given to the applicant at the last Town Council meeting and Council resolution No. 29-20112, stating "an expansion project could be designed without expanding outside the existing building envelope that would reduce project impacts on the appellants." The staff report and the Council resolution did not prohibit the applicant from making any modification to the building envelope; rather the direction was that the applicant should not expand the building envelope as then proposed because that proposal impacted the appellants too greatly. At that time, the appellants did not specifically oppose the modified walkway and, as found by the DRB, the modified walkway actually improves the privacy and noise impact on the neighbors. Likewise, the enclosure of existing lower porch into the building envelope to add to the lower bedroom would appear to represent a noise reduction. As staff stated in the report to the DRB, Town Council supported a revised plan with less of an impact- to neighbors: ... the Council recognized that there appeared to be ways to H IBIT NO. Mayor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Town of Tiburon October 1, 2013 Page 4 modify the project so that these impacts would be lessened on the neighbors, while still allowing the applicant to obtain the desired project result requested." In addition, the Council- agreed that a variance could be granted with respect to this project: "The Council also felt that there may be ways to articulate the necessary variance -findings, depending on how the project was modified and the magnitude of the variance requested." See enclosed Staff Report for DRB Meeting of March 7, 2013. Thus, contrary to appellants' argument, there was no "prohibition" of any specific feature sought by the applicant. instead, the direction of Council was for the applicant to come back with a modified plan that lessened the impact on neighbors, and the applicant has clearly done so. By eliminating the rear deck expansion and the kitchen expansion, the applicant has eliminated the need for a rear yard setback variance. The appellants object to the glass nana walls and insist that the applicant move the wall to ceiling accordion doors away from their side (the applicant's primary view apex) and to the center of the living room. In light of explicit prior suggestions by the appellants to remove the roof of the existing home in the proposed location of the nana walls to create outdoor deck space, we find this objection highly unreasonable. This suggestion would result in a home with virtually no cross - ventilation, and a repositioning of the entire central living environment and outdoor access away from the exceptional Golden Gate Bridge view, a restriction riot imposed on any other home along Mar East. The appellants' position must also be looked at in the context of the fact that in 2007, the appellants expanded their outside decks by 703 square feet to create an outdoor deck area totaling 1400 square feet. In addition, the appellants' have a very large open patio at the front (street side) of their home, with zero side yard setback. Spaces of this size could obviously be used for very large par-Lies, and so the appellants' deck expansion project, more than any feature contemplated by the applicant's project, represents a significant detriment to the noise and lighting privacy of adjacent and nearby and far away neighbors. In effect, in objecting to this project, the appellants are advocating that that they got to their property first and now the neighboring property cannot be improved. This is not reasonable or -fair. The appellants' objection to the addition of a lower ENTkFTBIT NO Mayor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Town of Tiburon October 1, 2013 Page 5 walkway is along the same lines as their other arguments, i.e., it represents a changed use of the existing property. The walkway would enable the applicant to have sate access to the back property for maintenance and is needed given that the beach is rocky and one could not safely position a ladder on the rocks. The applicant desires this walkway so that there is access to the property without consulting the tides. This seems reasonable, and staff had no specific objection to this feature, and it was supported by the DRB. This lower walkway would also redirect primary foot traffic when accessing the lower deck, away from the neighbors' living space towards the open space/courtyards on both properties (towards the street), thus resulting in further noise reduction. Appellants' argument with respect to 'Light and noise privacy assumes that appellants are entitled to "complete privacy" and "no increased noise or light" from an adjacent neighbor. This is not reasonable. The appellants have chosen to purchase their home in a developed community and must live with the normal improvements that one could expect to be made to adjacent residences. Also, it needs to be emphasized that there is a solid timber fence between the properties, ranging in height from twelve to sixteen feet that affords substantial privacy between the homes. The appellants have implausibly argued that light can shine through this fence and presumably they feel that the applicant is responsible to ensure that the project results in a zero light increase. It is inconceivable what improvements the applicant could make to the property if the Council were to apply this standard. The applicant recognizes that the modifications proposed represent a change to the existing residence, but the property is quite dated and any person moving into the property would want to make some changes. There will be an impact because the appearance of the property will change, but the issue for the Council is to consider whether the improvements are reasonable and beneficial to the broader Old Tiburon community, improving the standard of homes throughout the community, given what is a normal and modest update of the -residence. The Tiburon Municipal Code seeks to strike a balance between the competing interests of neighbors and applicants and this revised project would appear to strike a reasonable balance. The appellants, however, seem to believe that the Code provisions prohibit any impact or change to the appellants current experience of the adjoining residence. NO. Mayor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Town of Tiburon October 1, 2013 Page 6 The applicant has attempted to work with appellants and has even specifically retained an independent mediator to seek a compromise design, all to no avail. Dr. Wilton has repeatedly asked what modifications the appellants would be willing to accept as a condition of approving the plans. Until the most recent DRB approval, the appellants have refused to respond to this request E and instead have forced the applicant to repeatedly make modifications to the plans, and proceed with the planning process "in the dark", even, retracting their approval of alternative designs specifically suggested by the appellants throughout the review process. The appellants clearly intend to challenge any proposed improvement to the property that represents a change and their unwillingness to engage in collaborative good faith discussions and find a genuine compromise has significantly and unreasonably added to the time and expense of getting this project approved. The applicant has done everything he can to gain the support of his neighbors while making needed improvements to a dated home. He seeks to do no more than what other properties have done (indeed even less since this will now be the only home along Mar East without an exterior upper deck) and asks the Council to approve the plan based upon the findings attached, as previously approved by the Design Review Board, and outlined as findings that could be made and that were drafted by staff in the Staff Report for the March 7, 2013 DRB hearing. The applicant appreciates that the Council is concerned that approval- may result in litigation, Qiven that the appellants have said they will continue to challenge this project. In repeated discussions with Dr. Wilton and his partner, the appellants have represented that they have "deep pockets," political connections, intend to litigate, and failing that, intend to plant trees along the side of their property to obstruct the applicant's views. That is unfortunate, but residents should not have the right to hold up approval just by threatening litigation or other harmful acts. The applicant is willing to indemnify the Town in such a lawsuit as a condition of approval. This is truly a case where the Council has to make a decision faced with adjoining neighbor opposition and the threat of litigation. But the right decision is to approve the application because the applicant has -followed Council's direction, and modified the project accordingly. Further, to grant this appeal would be arbitrary and capricious, and ENTT .XENBIT No. Vi Mavor O'Donnell and Town Council Members Town of Tiburon October 1, 2013 Page 7 therefore in violation of Towanaa Association for a Scenic Communitv v. County of Los Anaeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506. We thank you for your consideration, and look forward to further discussing the application during the Council meeting on October 16. Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Brekhus fir'( q L LATE MAID , r PH- Date: Oct. 9, 2013 To: Tiburon Town Council D Subject: 2308 Remodel Lot Coverage Variance Appeal Hearing LUL.I 9 LU �3 We are Charles and Mik Flynn and reside at 2280 Mar East, two houses west of 2308 Mar East. We have been following the remodel project for the last two years and have attended the Design Review Board meeting on the subject, as well as the hearing in front of the Town Council last August. Throughout this whole process, we believe that the Applicant has not given any regard to the impact and injury he will cause his neighbors or the neighborhood. Each revision of the plans has been under the direction of the DRB or the Town Council and not in a cooperative process with the neighbors to understand and minimize the negative impact to the area. The DRB has been willing to grant the Applicant variances because the resulting plans have been paired down from the original requests and not because they have eliminated injury to neighbors. The original hearing in front of the Town Council was based on the negative visual impact to the adjoining neighbor homes. This Appeal was based on the negative acoustic impact to 2306. Recently, our neighborhood was negatively impacted by residents in the house across from us because of the amount of noise they created. We think the design of a home should protect neighbors from sound pollution regardless of who lives in the house. The peace in the neighborhood should not rely on the lifestyle of the residents or on the coldness of the weather. We are deeply concerned that 2308's upstairs Nana Walls, opening up at the SW corner towards our home, will once again create a similar nightmare situation for our neighborhood. Currently, most homes have very minimal windows that open towards each other. All major windows and doors of the homes along the water open towards the Bay and Angel Island. The reason for this is that sounds from the homes spill towards the water. This minimizes the noise impact on neighbors and the neighborhood. We also are concerned with the DRB's process of granting variances. The approach to Variance Granting is in the context of "Has the applicant made enough concessions ?" not on "Is the design still injurious to neighbors and neighborhood ?" If the DRB feels that the Applicant asking for a Variance has given up a major request, such as the upstairs deck in 2308's case, they grant the Variance. This approach violates the very process of Tiburon's Variance Granting. No variances are to be granted if they have negative impacts on neighbors. Once the remodel design of 2308 Mar East eliminated the upstairs deck, the DRB said they were satisfied with the concessions the Applicant had made. They did not analyze the impact of the Nana Walls opening at the SW corner on to 2306 and homes to the west. Furthermore, the downstairs deck addition in the narrow side yard was not analyzed for acoustic impact and 2308 was not asked to come up with alternatives, since the DRB's focus had been put on the upstairs deck. We urge the Town Council to deny the Variance granted to 2308 Mar East and direct the Applicant to approach his remodel to eliminate negative impact on his neighbors and our neighborhood. OW nei hborhood has homes that are within feet of each other and every project has to be respegtfle others' visual and acoustic privacy. 2280 LATE MAIL # PN-/ Dan Watrous Fromm: Susan Federman [yu nfed .non] Sent: Thursday, October 1O.2D139:28AM ` To: uonvxatnous | Cc; Magdalena Yes[ Thomas Friedman; LCVVnte net " Subject: 2308 Mar East Dear Mr. Watzoua, �----------------` I am writing with nouoezo about the building application for 2308 Mar East. Noise travels very quickly and very clearly up bill from the eater' It is my understanding that the addition being applied for will open to the Southern exposure along the road as opposed to the water and Angel Island. We have all experienced, recently, a great deal of noise from neighbors on Mar East with their constant parties. I just want to otzeaa the acoustical repercussions from any construction near the water in our tiny community on Mar East and trust The Planning Board will take this in consideration. Sincerely, Susan & Daniel Federman (30 Linda Vista Avenue) Sent from my iPad 1 BRYAN R. MCCARTHY JAY R. MACNIAHON THOMAS F. KEAnNG, JR. ROBERT J. TuRmm NEYL 1. ORAN, P=R A. KLEiNBRoDT FREITAS MCCARTHY MACMAI-ION & KEATING ---­LLP90m- Town of Tiburon 1108 FR;TH Av--NuE THnw FLOOR SAN RAY-AEL, CA 94901 415-456-7500 FAx 415-456-0266 1NQtJ1RYCWFR0TAsLAw. com -ww.FREuAsLAw.com BRANCIS OMCR X1150 SiR F ,,.s D.. B.. T I P r Ri-nirs SrA., CA 94956 ojN 415-663-1333 Re: Our clients: Jim Wickett and Magdalena Tesil Clients' address: 2306 Mar East, Tiburon Applicants: Peter Wilton/dba Mar East Development Co. LLC Applicants' Address: 2308 Mar East Street Dear Mayor O'Donnell and Honorable Council Members: Our clients Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil object to the Tiburon Design Review Board's approval of Applicant's design by Issuance of a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage. 1. The Proposed NanaWall Would Increase Noise by a Factor of 2 to 4 The applicants' current home has fixed windows at either side of the comer facing our clients' master bedroom that do not operate. According to Charles Salter, our clients' acoustic consultant, the proposed upstairs Great Room with its placement of NanaWalls at the comer would cause a 2 to 4 times increase in noise to Jim and Magdalena's master bedroom, in the range of a 10 to 20 decibels increase. Am The proposed new downstairs walkway, which is about 15 feet from Jim and Magdalena's second bedroom, will introduce foot traffic noise "Footfall" to a currently quiet and -inactive area. The alley characteristic -of this narrow side yard where this new walkway will be located will amplify the noise created by foot 1 traffic and conversation 0n this new walkway as they bounce off the tall walls and two houses on either side, creating an echo chamber effect. Therefore, this new `�Hl hn`n` 8Il injurious on my , second bedroom. walkway impact ^ The issuance uf8 variance would violate Municipal Section 16-52.030(E) and Government Code Section 65906. Q, According to the Tiburon Planning Staff report, the Applicants cannot establish either practical difficulty or physical hardship findings necessary tO excuse strict of zoning regulations '' b_ The Great with its proposed comer NanaWalls and the new impact downstairs walkway would increase noise significantly and have an injurious acoustic to Jim and 0 8 variance cannot issue. [See Section 16-52.030 (E) ~~^~,,'] c. The increase in noise '8 inconsistent `zi*h+he ^s acoustical design ` ,n�_�� o� as in the 2005 rmm ' d Applicants' violates the '8 Design ' remodel Although ' ` ` ' from ��D�O� �e �"~ regulations, CEQA CEQA furnishes helpful guidelines for the '3 consideration. For noise, CEQA uses 3-5 decibels 8SB measure 0f significant change. According fQ our clients' engineer Charles Salter, the project will increase 'se transmission to our client's bedroom windows by 10_78 decibels. `The Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-52.030(E) requires that following four specific findings be made prior to granting ofavariance. l. Special circumstances applicable to the property (such uu size, mbupc` louubou,ormurnound�gdtb� cause ay�iutapplioud000f the zoning regulations to deprive you of privileges enjoyed hv other properties inthe vicinity and same o« similar zone. 2. Granting of the variance would not result in u special privilege that is inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zone. 3. The strict application uf the zoning regulations would result in practical difficulty or necessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships shall not beconsidered. 4. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or Injurious to other property in the vicinity. z7.3 Noise Goals: '^ ..toxmxunet6o1onidenbuloneauarcgoiet`"...tnxlimbuge or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises from all sources ..... ...... mninimizzthe exposure of community residents to noise through the careful placement of land uses that may cause noise impacts." 3 Principle 9: Acoustic privacy is important to all residents. Possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent uouiamzue0000igh6um. Principal 6C. Avoid placing windows where they will "look right into" someone else's home. 2 1110 211111IF1111-1112 il 11kil-W= As evidenced from the minutes of the April 18, 2013 DRB meeting on this matter, the DRB granted the Variance for Excess Lot Coverage and Floor Area Exception, based on the notion that the Applicant had "done enough", that the acoustic injury would be mitigated because the weather would keep doors closed, that the Great Room with a comer opening of NanaWalls was a pre-existing condition, and finally that no reasonable alternatives existed. The notion that the applicants would keep their NanaWalls closed at night is sheer speculation and ignores warm weather, increased heat in the Great Room, or evening activities and parties where guests may enjoy open NanaWalls, staying warm in an otherwise heated room. In any event, the Nana Walls in the comer would direct the focus of human gathering and activity towards my clients' master bedroom. The comer closest to Jim and Magdalena's master bedroom would become the focal point of gatherings in the Great Room. Charles Salter has established that the Great Room is very different acoustically from the previous deck of 2308 and thus the pre-existing condition argument fails. Charles Salter has also established the fact that the glass railing does not serve as a mitigation factor for the noise impact. The Tiburon Ordinance requires that the decision to grant the Variance has to be based on the fact that the design does not cause injury to neighboring properties, and not be based on assertions of future lifestyle. We believe reasonable alternatives exist that will give the applicant the benefit of the Great Room design while minimizing the acoustic privacy injury to Jim and Magdalena. These were not considered by the DRB. Jim and Magdalena have worked with acoustic engineer Charles Salter and architect Cass Smith to determine if alternative designs exist that would minimize the negative acoustic impacts of the 2308 remodel to their bedrooms specifically for the two design elements of the remodel that are identified by acoustic expert Charles Salter as the most injurious to my clients. They have found that such reasonable alternatives do exist which are being presented separately from this letter. We request that the Tiburon Town Council consider the alternative designs that minimize injurious acoustic impact of this remodel to our clients and if found acceptable, bring this matter to a close during the Appeal Hearing. Alternatively, we request that the Excess Lot Coverage Variance be denied. Sincerely, Freitas McCarthy MacMahon & Keating, LLP LO 2 Neil Dan Watrous From: Cathy Benediktsson [cbenediktsson @me.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:03 PM To: Clan Watrous Cc: Chris & Cathy Benediktsson _ ; n,i Subject: 2308 Mar East Dan, Our family has lived at 2352 Mar East Street in Tiburon for over 40 years. I have lived there for the last 13 years. We have seen this neighborhood change significantly over the years, as green spaces have been taken over by enlarged buildings and homes moving closer to each other. All trying to maximize the floor space on expensive lots. This is at the expense of livability of the neighborhood. The walkers who appreciate peek views between homes, and the greenery. I am writing regarding the 2308 Mar East remodel and particularly on Tiburon DRB's the granting of a Excess Lot Coverage Variance to this home. I believe the home already exceeds the Zoning allowed lot coverage at its current 69%. Granting a variance to increase this amount further sets a very negative precedence for our neighborhood for overgrowth. It is already suffering from previous bad decisions. I believe that variances be granted only after utmost consideration is given to the impact on neighbors and approved designs avoid intrusive additions and changes to the neighboring properties. Thank you for your consideration Cathy Benediktsson 1 Charles M. Salter, PE David R. Schwind, FAES Robert P. Alvarado Eric L Broadhurst, PE Philip N. Sanders, LEED AP Anthony P. Nosh, PE Thomas A. Schindler, PE Cristina L Miyar Jason R. Duty, PE Durand R. Begault, PhD, FAES Thomas J. Corbett, CTS Joey G. D'Angelo Eric A. Yee Joshua M. Roper, PE, LEED AP Peter K. Holst, PE, LEED AP Christopher A. Peltier, PE Ethan C. Salter, PE, TEED AP Thomas D. Keller, CDT Craig L. Gilian, RCDD Alex K. Salter, PE Jeremy L. Decker, PE Dylan B. Mills, CTS Davis H. Keith, CTS-D Paul R. Billings Erika A- Frederick Travis R. Lawrence Benjamin D. Piper Elisabeth S. Kelson Ian M Staub Noel J. BacoN Joshua J. Harrison Brian J. Good Heather A. Salter Dee E. Garcia Catherine F. Spurlock Marva De Vear - Noordzee Elizabeth F. Tracker Jennifer G. Palmer Jodessa P. Gregorto Susan E. Lonergan Heather D_ Heise Courtney H. Vlneys Erin D. Gorton Charles M. Salter ASSOCIATES INC. t- "`' 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 C C i v V iii Son Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 www.crosaiter.com Subject: Appeal of Design Review Board Decision for 2308 Mar East Street YProject • 13-0266 We have been asked by our clients Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett who live at 2306 Mar East Street to review the potential acoustic impacts of the subject project. This letter summarizes our opinions and our background in regards to these matters. 1. The existing 2308 Mar East home has fixed glass in the sunroom facing west towards our client's bedroom windows. 2. The proposed plan creates a Nanawall opening in the exterior facade on the west corner. As a result, noise in the future living room /dining room /kitchen "Great Room" of this home can be directly transmitted to our client's bedrooms. 3. The increased noise transmission to our client's bedrooms is predicted to be in the range of 10 - 20 decibels. The perceived noise would increase by 2 to 4 times, a significant amount. For purposes of comparison, in our experience, The California Environmental Quality Act typically uses a threshold change of 3 - 5 decibels as a measure of significant change. Thus, the predicted potential noise increases would exceed CEQA guidelines. 4. We are also concerned about the increased noise pollution and build -up due to adding a downstairs walkway on the west side of the 2308 Mar East home. Footfall noise on this proposed walkway would be amplified as result of reflections off the exterior walls of the two subject residences into the bedroom of 2306 Mar East. 5. In our professional opinion, the proposed remodeling would be an anathema to the Tiiburon's acoustical design objectives as stated in the General Plan dated September 2005. 7.3 Noise Goals: "... to ensure that residential areas are quiet...""... to eliminate or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises from all sources..." "... to minimize the exposure of community residents to noise through the careful placement of land uses that may cause noise impacts." Upstairs: Retain the fixed glass facing west towards 2306 Mar East and require 10 -foot long fixed glass at the two corners with a 10 -foot long Nanawall centered in this window wall facing the bay. Downstairs: Utilize interior circulation through the 2308 Mar East residence rather.than adding the exterior walkway on the west side. TOWN CLERK OWN OF TIEURON Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Son Francisco, CA 94104 T 415.397.0442 F 415.397.0454 www.cmsciter.com Appeal of Design Review Board Decision for 2308 Mar East Street 7 October 2013 Page 2 During the last 30 years our firm has been involved in over 60 projects in Tiburon. These include, input to the Tiburon Noise Element (1987), Acoustical Evaluation of the Tiburon General Plan EIR (1988), acoustical design of the Belvedere Tiburon Library (1995), and the Tiburon Town Hall (1996), design and evaluation for the Point Tiburon Condominiums, Congregation Kol Shofar, Romberg Tiburon Bay Conference Center Remodeling, Peninsula Club Renovation, and the Belvedere Country Club. Enclosed is a copy of my resume and our firm description. I plan to attend the October 16tJ` hearing on this matter and will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER Assocum, ITC. Charles M. Salter, PE President dg/CMS P: 13-0266JOct2013 CMS_Appeal of Design Review Board Decision for 2308 Mar East Street Charles AA. Salter C h a r I e s f4a S a I tean A s s o c i atsos 0mc During the last 30 years, our firm has been involved in over 60 projects in Tiburon. These projects have included the ; ^ 1982 — 1990 — Acoustical Design and Mediation for the Point Tiburon Condominiums * 1987-2O08— Acoustical Design and Environmental Noise Analysis for Congregation Wol Shofar * 1987— Input to the Tiburon Noise Element * 1988— Acoustical Analysis for the Tiburon General Plan EIR = 1995— Acoustical Design of the Belvedere Tiburon Library 0 1996— Acoustical Design of the Tiburon Town Hall " 1998 — Acoustical Design input for the Romberg Tiburon Bay Conference Center v 2001 — Neighborhood Acoustic Impact Study for the Peninsula Club Renovation 0 2OO8— Belvedere Country Club Community Noise Study. Acoustics Audiovisual Telecommunications Security 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 Charles M. Salter, PE President educatidn Boston College MBA Finance, 1972 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BS Art and Design, major in Architecture, minor in City Planning, 1969 Tufts University BSCE major in Structural Engineering, minor in Economics, 1965 professional registration California: ME No. 16460 (1974) Nevada: ME No. 3963 (1974) Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Board Certified (1975) professional affiliations Allied Member of AIA San Francisco US Green Building Council, Former Technical Advisory Committee Member Mr. Salter has practiced acoustical engineering for over 40 years With educational backgrounds in architecture, planning, n q, engineer g, and business, Mr. Salter has conducted a wide range of consulting in the areas of architectural acoustics, noise control engineering, and environmental noise impact He has had project responsibility for various facility types including schools, recreation centers, offices, theaters, residences, hospitals, and civic buildings. honors - Fellow of the Society, Acoustical Society of America, 2006 Received "for contributions to the teaching of architectural acoustics and to its practical applications." - Allied Professions Honor Award, American Institute of Architects, California Council, 1998 Received "in recognition of unique dedication and focused drive to enhance, support and significantly contribute to the advancement of architectural practice. The extensive knowledge displayed as an acoustical consultant, author and educator creates an invaluable balance that bridges the language among various disciplines. The three decades as an innovator, practitioner and mentor, has been instrumental in increasing awareness of crucial acoustical considerations in architectural design. The level of personal commitment coupled with industrious contributions, merit the highest admiration from the profession of architecture." teaching experience - Continuing Lecturer, UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, 1973-Present publications - Coauthor, ACOU577CS., Architecture, Engineering, the h Environment (William Stout Publisher, 1998) Charles M. Salter Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc, consultants im acoustics, audiovisual system design, telecommunications, and security, was founded in 1975 and has offices in San Francisco and San Jose. With a staff of more than 50, we are involved in over 900 projects per year in nine major service areas. CSA's acoustical consultants are involved in all facets of environmental noise impact assessments and have conducted hundreds of environmental noise studies for government entities aS well asprivate institutions. We utilize our extensive cadre of short-term and long-term noise monitoring equipment to quantify and characterize noise levels in complex environments, many with multiple noise sources. Noise exposure modeling is used to predict future noise levels for a variety of sources, including vehicular traffic, rail transit, aircraft and industrial sources. The measurements and modeling are used to evaluate noise impacts and to develop mitigation measures to meet applicable standards and to minimize annoyance. * Environmental Acoustics: assessing environmental noise impacts from various sources, including vehicular traffic, airports/heliports, buses, light rail and railroad facilities, construction, geothermal plants, and mines/quarries; and designing noise mitigation including sound-rated windows, doors, and noise barriers. • Architectural Acoustics: designing room acoustics, sound isolation, and noise control for performing arts centers; audio recording, prod uction/post-production facilities, and broadcast studios; government/educational/cultural facilities; airports; housing and hotels; office buildings; hospitals; research facilities; and places of worship. • Engineering Acoustics: reducing noise and vibration from mechanical, ventilation, plumbing, and transportation systems; product noise control; and acoustic modeling. ° Audiovisual System Design: defining audiovisual requirements for media rooms and presentation facilities; developing audiovisual design requirements into contract documents; testing the electrical, visual, and acoustical characteristics todocument and training system operating personnel. 0 Sound System Design: integrating electroacoustical systems and architectural acoustics; electronically enhancing room acoustics; reinforcing music and speech in theaters, hails, arenas, shopping centers, meeting rooms, and boardrooms; designing sound masking systems for offices; and designing and measuring loudspeakers. = Telecommunications: voice, data, and fiber optic cabling for universities, business environments, government facilities, laboratories and data centers; network equipment and building infrastructure to support telecommunications systems. Acoustics 0 Security: integrating the design of video surveillance, access control, and intrusion detection /w6iovi,00| systems for educational, commercial, cultural, residential, and government facilities to enhance the Telecommunications ability to monitor building spaces and protect quality of life and security of assets and property. Secuh/y ° Acoustic Simulation: providing calibrated aural simulation of acoustical environments, generally prior to construction, including sound isolation, reverberation, and ventilation noise. Simulations -------- are presented in a sound isolated studio using current multimedia technology. 1s0 Sutter Street ' Floor ° Public Presentation/ Expert Testimony: effectively communicating technical information to Son Francisco, cA decision-makers and the public at meetings and hearings and providing expert testimony as part of 94104 judicial proceedings. T4\53P7u442 F4l5.397D454 °~~^cmm|ter.p,m ' / Charles Ak Salter 7 October 2O13 Town Council Town ofTiburon Hall 15O5 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Members, ' [C ' �P T 0R YU}l r' "v. | � . , Magdalena Yemil and Jim Wickett requested that vVe look adthe proposed plans for 23O8 Mar East, as they relate to the Nana wall of the upstairs Great Room, and the downstairs walkway and deck additions. Specifically, xve were asked to determine if a corner Nana wall provides superior air circulation and ventilation compared to a Nana \0e|l that is centered in the middle of straight wall. Corner Nana Walls do not provide effective air circulation, since the openings are a19O degrees tVeach other. For effective air circulation, window openings should be placed at walls facing each other, not on walls at8D degrees. Therefore a corner Nana wall design does not provides significantly better air circulation than e Nana xxeU placed on a straight wall. We were also asked by our clients if the current downstairs hallway could be effectively used to provide through traffic and access to the downstairs deck. Interior hallways are generally more favorable to homeowners, especially those with young children or elderly people living in the house, as they do not require going outside into the elements. The attached rough drawing shows how the interior corridor can replace the exterior walkway to access the outside deck though a minor modification to abathnoorD and adding a small landing instead of a significant timber walkway that is 15 feet away from our clients' bedroom. Our firm employs 1D architects in our San Francisco and New York City offices. We have designed many homes inthe San Francisco Bay Area and Manhattan areas, and have won many awards, including Best Remodel for Belvedere Residence. We have significant knowledge in acoustics within architecture through our extensive work on restaurant and hospitality design. In the Bay Area, we have designed such restaurants as || Fnontoio in Mill Valley, Lulu's, 25 Lusk, and most recently the Barrel House in Sausalito. In designing neatounen1a in particular, air circulation and noise reduction are a key element ofdesign that we have studied in great detail. An it relates to 2308 Mar East Street, we believe that noise pollution descending down upon 2306 Mar East would be greatly reduced if the Nana wall was moved to the center of the room over the Bay, and this alone would not have an adverse impact on theairnirnu|ahoO- VVe also believe noise pollution would be substantially reduced, with nomaterial adverse design impact, if the outside walkway was eliminated and replaced by a small landing. | plan tobe at the October 1«m hearing on this matter and will be available to answer any questions. Sincerely, Cass Cass Calder @mith.AIA President, CCS Architecture Resume and Awards attached wwcLeu Court San Francisco Califomia54103415.864,2800 lei 415.864.2850 fax t "il '16uia •i.� � 7k - ir r' af CO rr LU C) C() Cl) E >, 0 0 0 .0 3: Z co -C c a) > NCO N co Q) (D 0 v 0 (J) -0 C,5 0 < 0 75 Cf) 0 co co US a) > co a) U 0 00 ca C\j (a) 0 C: 7E-) .LD (1) 0 C\l C13 (D C) co C — > (D CL U- 0) 0 0 7 CO C\J CO x co cf) M S2 U 0 F E 0 0 0 �5E 0 O v N C5 0 ca 0 ca 0 a) C/) CES :E (D > CD < E lz I z E co 05 Ed cl) o I— C: CO 7B G < CV (D C() CZ cz c o -0 'F < Ca 0 (D -0 co Cb ca CO a) co ca 0 0 0 a) 0 0 _0 0 0 0 v (D 4- (D < 0 C () 0 co � ca 0 .0 3: s-- co c a) co NCO N co Q) 0 0 v 0 -0 C,5 Q) 0 0 -tf a) co 0 c a) > co a) U 0 ca (D Z C13 (D C) co C — CO (D CL _0 a) 0 7 co CO - CO X c w 0 0 0 �5E 0 O v 4 ca ca C/) CES :E (D > CD < co 'E 05 Ed cl) I— U CO G < CV (D CZ cz c o o cz 3: ca . U 0 0 0 0 U) 0 co 0 (D CZ (Z 0 a) +� 0 cc; 0 E cc$ (D co Cc) M co -a c co c (Z = C: 0) E a.) 0 co co U) a) (D a) 0 -E CO < a) = 0 CO -0 uj > 0 co co 0 �o 0 — 0 \1 = a) Z .0 ±� >, C a) -" w 0 LI- 0 a) _0 co CD co o U o > .0 W a) co .0 0- .0 E 0 co N C: a) c co = c " E cc; Ewa)CO 0 0 - Fa)o E E03: 0 ca d 0- U) -0 (D n L� cc co . c 0 0 Q) C\ cl co C\l 0 'r CO 0 =3 0 .9 E -0 < 0 0 C\j C-i 0 �o < C: D C:� M co (D CO 0 (D _0 C%j E a) a F- > 5) -0 D LL (D C/ C) > 0 E < co (D LD 0 m 0 75 (D 2 �2 'F o r D C6 a) (z -C 0 co 0 E z a) < CO Cl) 0 < < 0 co 0) M 0 < Cf) -5 co P 0 CZ " CL a) 0) 4- -0" 0 0) a) 0 0 0) co 0 Q) 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 C)) C\j c 0 C\l cis < CL :D 0 < 0 > 0 41 70 CL 0) = .;= c (TJ 0 cc E cri Cl) 0 co o 0 E c co -0 co 0) C: --3 c CL: v 0 E a) E < FD < co c c D :� L3) c (D tm M co a) Cl) -2 0- rr < C: 3: C: E -0) 15 cy) 0 0) C: :p M U) < 0 a) n 0 .0 c 0 co (D co iE co x (3) 0 a) Z IL co 0 Q a) < (1) LU 0 U) m -0 0 zt-- CO C:) 0- LO �: -,�i n o (z :D 3: h-- 0 CO 0. CO _0 >1 C\l 0 0 CO r) z — E c -C —co Lr) gz N -2 :3 O)o 3>> c a) 0 -2 Cl) a 0 (a) I 7- C) < '— 0) 0: a CO "t 0 0 < 2:, (D a) > 0 ui 0 0 cc; 0 0 -0 o E Z b o c: m �o rb 0 w C\l u) c: co w c: F- C,) N ID K- E a) 0 C\j 0 N a>)' 0 U- c' 2 t Q) -F -0 0 -2 c: cD "2 = -0 0 5 o o 3: 0 CO 2 E C6, > (D 0 o 2 —a < (B < 0 Cc 0 a) a) 0 0 :3 0 C: o r- co 3: , co ti < < < 5; ZZ z U: n (D < < N 0 U� 2: < III cq coo < < z a. < <w 0 co co CD co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C\j C) N a") 0 a) 0- C\j :3 cr) 0 zi a) < — C\J C: ft C: CL ,a c) , (1) u- :z ­7 0 E - C\l C, U) CO 0) -0 c z A- cz CO C: C 0 0 o < -2 co < 0 ca U) a) 0 co < 0) E� — C\l (j) =5 ca < 0 0 E a) 0 W cz 0 a) rr < C\l LL E a) -T E C 16 E 0 E -2 0 4- cn CD co W (z 0 < ccn n a) 3: 0 Q 0 LO Cf) a) a) U) r) < o T a) > Um t5 a) co C/D co P _0 0) CO rr 0 U) -0 0 0) LU Cl) C\j 0) < co ca CO 0 Ci) tf CU (D Q < a) co r- CD to 0) a) 73 < C) 0 0) c a) ccs ra 0 0 72 c3) 9 0 — co c C�6 0) co co -0 (1) 0 0 0 CC) 0 o 0) a) 0 C) w C\1 < .5; a-- Q) < co co .@ porn C Q (D E — — C: LL a) >, (D (D Z� a) 0 UJ C\l (Z >, a) a) (Z > (D 0 C" D- co (D — W = — E < C 46 0 0) 0 co :5; C) > 0 41 o 0 0 0 E C: 0 U� o '0 Ce) M E 1� odd < 2 0 CC) t C\J a) E E 0 ca -2 m E -a co _0 0 �R (D 0 E ca 73 co -0 E -R < CL 0 co U) -V5 075 as co a) 0 0 i� 0 C) (D 0 a) " 0 a) a) 0 0 3: o w o o o C) -�5 75- c —:�iC ==2 m C\j F- < CO 0) 0 -r N 0 U) 0 -j U= 0 0 _0 r r ON > 0 0 a) -2- (a) -0 — 0) C\l C\j < 0 c 0 co -6 0 C: C\j (2) .2 0 3� czi W 0, n C\l 0 < (1) < (D E cd C\l 0 -0 co OL -�2) CO 0 a) W -d -2- C\j -0 (1) (n a) — �5 t m Cl) co cz as 7> N () 0 ohm Cl) (1) 0 w co Z6 (3) (1) . —(D co C\l (Z co (D —C 2 41 Q 0— .0 2 < < -0 > o E .4 rT- 72 iri " 0 d co E (D 0 LL n C\j 01 C: C\l T 0) 0 w a) 0 < C: 0 Q) ca a) C 0 = C\J 0 -ca 03 . — " — -E TZ 0 cO < C15 I- cc � 2 > C) - z o — c -�6 (D 0) 0 0 c N CZ -1 0 co co _0 r- 0 a) ca a) +C6 :CDO (D CO Co rQr) -M -00 ca Cf) a) >1 0 a) " M CO 2 m 0 -0 2 o) c > CO — =3 C\j co < 0- C) -0 0 0 v 0 0 0 CO C15 0 rr 0 C 06 CC LM co CO . 3: — co a) m 2 m 06 (D 0 0 < 0 2 0 aw) < c: < a) CO C) N 0 a) M C co 1) < a)-- cn rr 0 C= L> 4-1 0, a) co E t5 rn -0 — m Do- 215 0 0 0 a) -E 0 co CD C/3 CIS N 0 0 co 0 CO E CD n co a) 0 CO Co Cl) CO CO > (3 < a) ob (D U) c (D (Z :3 C: a) CO 0 (D ca 0 < 0 7D r) -0 r) Cc a) r- .0 48 - -3 �o w 4 '15 ccs :3 CL E cc T — o 1� — — N 4 cc ". r) E z 7, Y- 2 = 72 m 0 0 _Z6 C ID (1) 0 3: (D 9 '5-= 2 (3) 73 E (D 0) Co n I r- co co :3 0 0 < 0 co U) = r) 02 C) (j) F- CO CO CO = —C: :2 0 Lu rr T- 'r s () ED .JUG ---.) to C\j October 7, 2013 Dear Tiburon Town Council: T, N i jl d Oct 0 8 2013 IL IN;G DIVIC-10,N1 We have been following the a Review Board process for 23308 Mar East Street very closely. Many homes on this particular span of Mar East Street were previously owned and occupied by the same family. Because of this, the houses were designed in very close C� proximity to one another, affordi-no, minimal privacy from adjacent neighbors. After the patriarch of that family passed away, the units began to sell. In fact, the house just to the ZIP west of us is one of those quirky homes and sold last spring. So, we have an extremely vested interest in the outcome of this appeal. We understand that 2308 Mar East was granted a Lot Coverage Variance to expand its lot. We are very concerned that such a variance was granted since 2308 is already overbuilt at 69% -- almost twice the coverage that current zoning allows. We think granting such an excessive variance sets a negative precedence for additional overbuilding on Mar East. As more homes owned by this family are sold, the new owners will want to follow the example set by 2308 0 8 Mar East. Sound issues are also of great concern with such limited separation between the houses. Sounds echo in the narrow side yards between the homes, bouncing off the structures and creating an environment that produces excessive noise. Therefore, the approval of elements like wooden walkways and vast sliding doors off central entertaining rooms needs to be carefully considered with these unique conditions in mind. We recently signed a neighborhood petition to preserve the character of Mar East Street. I Intrusive additions and changes approved by the Design Review Board place the specialness of this, the oldest street in Tiburon, in jeopardy. Thank you for your time. Respectfully GauAna and ark/ Dickinson 2322 Mar East Street To Tiburon Town Council 09 08? 13 We are Klaus and Linda Meinberg and are long-time residents of Tiburon. We live at 2275 Mar East St. We have owned 2 businesses in town since 1980 and currently own The Candy Store on Main Street. We recently had a very negative experience with noise generated by a neighboring house when it was rented for a six-month period. The tenants entertained every weekend and at various times during the week. We and other neighbors had to call the police regularly. We believe that noise pollution is a very real issue for the residents of Mar East because of the close proximity of the homes to each other and the very significant effect of sound waves reflecting off the water and traveling uphill. The DRB should only approv designs that will not have a negative acoustic impact on adjacent neighbors and others in the larger vicinity. Regarding the matter of 2308 Mar East, we are specifically concerned about the upstairs combined living room and kitchen opening up towards the west, facinj 2306 Mar East. The sounds spilling out of this room upstairs can have a significant impact on us, especially when the residents of 2308 are entertaining. We think that sound impac will be far less if the room opens over the water away from the homes in the area. In addition, variances should not be granted for homes on Mar East. These homes are already very close to each other and they already cover a majority of the small lots. We wrote a note to the DRB stating this opinion in the last hearing for 2308 Mar East. We hope you will take these thoughts into consideration on Oct 16 when you make your decislon on this . Jilot be attending and I therefore are submitting this letter. Klaus and Linda Meinberg 2275 Mar East RoSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. nt"; FA fE'l L U TOWN CLERK Ta%IVN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REPORT FOR: 2308 Mar East Tiburon, CA RGDL Project#: 13-068 Dr. Peter C. Wilton 2465-1/2 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 F.11MIEWSM 1, DATE: 14 October 2013 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle 9375 Larkspur CA 94939 - Tel 415 464 0150 < Fax 415 464 0155 - RGDI-acoustics.corn 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA Environmental Noise Report 1. Introduction Page 1 of 5 14 October 2013 The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing single family residence located along the San Francisco Bay waterfront in Tiburon. This study evaluates the effect of adding full height, operable glass window/walls (i.e. Nanawalls) to the second floor of the exsting residence. In particular, the neighbor to the west (another single family residence) has expressed concerns about increased noise due to the presence of the Nanawalls along the west elevation of the living room of the subject residence. 2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the Lgo which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 ° - Larkspur CA 94939 c Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 ,, RGDLacoustics.corn 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA Environmental Noise Report 3. Acoustical Criteria 3.1. Town of Tiburon Page 2 of 5 14 October 2013 The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has goals and policies to promote land uses that are compatible with various noise levels. In particular, policy N-1 states: The Town shall use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guildelines contained herein to determine where noise levels in the community are acceptable or unacceptable. Figure 1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines - Town of Tiburon According to the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, residential land use is considered "Normally Acceptable" if the CNEL is less than 60 dBA. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, bic. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 , Larkspur CA 94939 ,,, Tel 415 464 0150 � Fax 415 464 0155 <- RGDLacoustics.corn 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA Environmental Noise Report 4. Noise Measurements 4.1. Indoors Page 3 of 5 14 October 2013 In order to quantify typical noise levels from use of the residence, a series of noise measurements was made inside the existing residence. The measurements consisted of music being played from a stereo system, a person talking on the phone and two people (man and woman) having a conversation. The indoor measurements were done with a Larson Davis 824 precision integrating sound level meter at varying distances from the noise source. For the music, the sound level was set by the applicant to a level considered typical. Similarly, for both the phone call and conversation, vocal effort was considered typical by the parties involved (owner and renter). Table 1 summarizes the results of the indoor measurements. Table 1: Indoor Noise Measurements Noise Source Location Leq Distance Duration Music (Stereo) Living 51 dBA 24 ft. 4 min. Room Telephone conversation Living 51 dBA 3 ft. 2 min. (female) Room Conversation Living 57 dBA 3 ft. 5 min. (male and female) Room 4.2. Outdoors ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. To quantify existing ambient noise levels outdoors, a noise monitoring system was deployed on the lower deck which is located between the project site and the adjacent residence to the west. The monitoring system consisted of one Larson Davis 820 precision integrating sound level meter and a digital audio recorder. The monitor was located at 5 feet above the elevation of the deck which is the approximate first floor elevation of the adjacent residence. The noise monitor ran for two days beginning on Thursday September 26th through Saturday September 28th. The noise levels varied througout the day but were dominated by the sound of waves and waves breaking on the shore. Daytime noise levels were typically higher than nighttime levels. Figure 2 shows the ambient hourly noise levels. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 �, Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 -= Fax 415 464 0155 ,u, RGDI-acoustics.com 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA Environmental Noise Report Page 4 of 5 14 October 2013 Based on the results of the measurements, the CNEL was 63 dBA on Thursday through Friday and 61 dBA on Friday through Saturday. The average CNEL for the two days was 62 dBA. 5. Analysis and Conclusions Table 2 shows usage information for the major noise generating activities in the second floor living area of the project as provided by the applicant. Based on our measurements and the typical usage information in Table 2, we calculate that the CNEL at the adjacent residence would be 42 dBA with all second floor Nanawalls open ((i.e. Nanawalls on the south elevation (facing Angel Island) and west elevation (facing residence) are open)). Table 2: Noise Sources and Typical Daily Duration Activity Leq at neighbor (dBA) Typical Daily Duration (hrs) Day (7a - Eve (7p - 10p) Night (10p - 7a) Telephone 36 1.5 1 0 TV 36 0 2 1 Music 36 1 1 1 Conversation 42 0 2 1 The Town of Tiburon considers a CNEL of 60 dBA or less as being normally acceptable for residential development. Based on our calculations, the CNEL at the adjacent residence would be 42 dBA from typical daily use with the project Nanawalls facing west open. A CNEL of 42 dBA is well within levels considered normally acceptable by the Town (CNEL of 60 dBA) and well below the existing ambient noise levels that we measured (CNEL of 61 to 63 dBA). To put the noise from daily use of the living room in perspective, we annotated Figure 2 with a shaded area that indicates the range of average noise levels from use of the second floor living area with all Nanawalls (those facing south and west) open. Though we did not measure at the adjacent residence, the ambient hourly noise levels we measured on the lower deck (blue and pink lines in Figure 2) are a reasonable approximation of the existing ambient noise levels affecting the east elevation of the neighboring residence. Figure 2 shows that the average noise level from typical daily activities in the second floor living area with all second flor Nanawalls open (shaded blue area) would be well below existing ambient noises that were measured in that area. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, Itic. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle ,,4375 w Larkspur CA 94939 � Tel 415 464 0150 .', Fax 415 464 0155 � RGDLacoustics.corn 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA Environmental Noise Report 80 70 60 0 0 EE 30 C Page 5 of 5 14 October 2013 Figure 2: Ambient Noise Measurement Results — Lower Deck 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 Time of Day (hour beginning) In addition to the new living room layout, a new exterior walkway is being proposed to allow access to the existing lower level deck. The average noise generated by an occasional person traversing the walkway would be much less than the noise from use of the living room and would, therefore, not increase the predicted noise levels. In conclusion: • Typical daily use of the project would generate an average daily noise level that is well within that which is considered "normally acceptable" for residences per the Town of Tiburon General Plan Noise Element. Average hourly noise levels from typical use of the project would be much less than the average hourly noise levels that already exist in the area from ambient noise sources. We were asked to comment on the removal of a privacy screen that was installed over the existing bedroom window on the east elevation of the neighbor's residence. If the privacy screen was constructed of a solid material, such as plywood, then removal of the screen may have increased noise in the neighbors' bedroom due to loss of acoustical shielding provided by the screen ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, Itic. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 , Larkspur CA 94939 -- Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 --- RGDLacoustics.com LATE MAIL # • =- 4, TOWN C�ERK TOVYN OF TIBURON Nova-to,C-A 9,119418 V' l i 5pact A n is a y s • =- 4, TOWN C�ERK TOVYN OF TIBURON Nova-to,C-A 9,119418 iSUa f=act October 8, 2013 Visual Impact Analysis of The Proposed Project At 2308 Mar East, Tiburon CA Introduction At the direction of Dr. Peter Wilton, property owner of 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA, Visual Impact Analysis LLC (VIA) performed this visual impact assessment. The methodology used was to review project data, perform extensive site reconnaissance, photograph and analyze site conditions, and assess and consider the design application modification history and associated plans. The following visual impact assessment is based on VIA's 25 years of extensive experience performing CEQA assessments and providing peer review for hundreds of CEQA projects and assisting with local design review analysis of projects in Marin County and other cities, towns and counties throughout California, with specific focus on visual impacts and visual impact assessments. The proposed renovation at 2308 Mar East project has gone through a number of design modifications leading to the current proposed plan. The project is now confined to the existing house footprint, incorporating two exterior changes that enclose existing space within the footprint of the residence. First, at the street level, the project contemplates enclosing a portion of the front entrance walkway and, second, at the lower level, the project proposes to continue the existing wall plane from above to below. In addition, the project at the lower level includes the addition of a 3' walkway connecting the lower existing deck to the downstairs living area. A landing at the end of the T foot walkway allows for safe use of the walkway, and maintenance of existing foliage and screening. This landing is not large enough for family or social gatherings and therefore should not be considered a deck. The rest of the exterior renovations consist of window and door replacement and some minor window location changes. The lower floor replaces a single window facing the Bay with glass panels similar to the other replacement floor to ceiling panels and doors. Fig. 1 shows the existing southeast elevation and Fig. 2 shows the same elevation of the plan approved by DRB at its meeting on April 18, 2013. Arfalysis:,, Fig. I Existing Fig. 2 Proposed v i ua Impact Analysis Summary of Findings VIA has analyzed the current DRB approved project and has concluded that the project produces no significant adverse visual impacts to neighbors at 2310 Mar East and 2306 Mar East. This is mainly due to the fact that there is good screening between the properties, but also because 2306 Mar East windows and views are oriented toward the Golden Gate Bridge and away from 2308 and the proposed improvements do not significantly change the lighting impact to 2310 and 2306 from the existing residence as currently constructed. We understand that the residents at 2306 are appealing the project because they believe that lighting impacts associated with the current proposed project will be intrusive and will produce new nighttime lighting impacts. Looking at each of the areas of proposed improvements demonstrates why the improvements will create a negligible increase in the light impact experienced by 2306. Analysis of Street Level Front and Sidevard Modifications between 2308 and 2306 The photo in Fig. 3 shows story poles at the front entrance to depict the improvements at this location. In addition to the modification shown by the story poles, discussed below, the project adds some small architectural accents and changes the house paint color. These exterior improvements will not result in any adverse visual impacts to neighbors. The updating of the front facade will improve the articulation and overall appearance of the residence, while being in harmony with Old Town. Fig. 3 also illustrates the significant screening provided to 2306 Mar East by existing foliage and a 16 -foot timber fence between the two properties. The upper level modifications in the front of the property are substantially screened from any view from the interior of the residence at 2306 Mar East. The modifications even benefit the existing lighting impact from 2308 to 2306 by moving the front door closer to the street and eliminating the need to illuminate the exterior entranceway. In addition, the proposed improvements on this level provide the residents of 2308 with important protection from inclement weather, and shift outdoor foot traffic away from 2306 Mar East towards the street, thereby reducing exterior noise levels. Thus it is the conclusion of VIA that the improvements at the front entry of 2308 provide a substantial benefit to 2306 by minimizing lighting and noise impacts. 01 Visual e z €€ art Analysis of Lower Level Modifications between 2308 and 2306 Fig. 3 is also useful to look at when considering the lighting impact caused by the proposed lower level modifications. Under the plans, the trees will remain, with minor trimming to allow for the lower level walkway. As the picture shows, the walkway will not be visible from the street or from any view from within the residence at 2306 Mar East. As shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the trees as well as the existing 16' solid wood fence screen will block any view of 2308 Mar East. Fig. 3. Existing 2308 Mar East showing modest entry extension story poles and the substantial screening between 2308 and 2306. El isu Pa `kC 4a tS Fig. 4 This photo is taken in the gap or grotto that separates 2308 from 2306. The photo in Fig. 4 was taken at the approximate elevation of the new walkway and entry on the lower level. It is clear from the photo that the 3' walkway and landing cannot be seen from 2306 through the existing 16' solid wood fence. The left side of the photo shows the existing overhang. The empty space below the overhang will become a small amount of additional living space within the existing footprint of the house. The addition of the walkway enhances the ability to maintain the existing trees due to improved access to the area that does not currently exist. This benefits both properties. It is clear from the photo and proposed plans that no significant visual impacts will ensue from the modest walkway and improvements at the lower level of the home given the existing screening. Visual a C , fy SIS Fig. 5 Looking from the existing deck at 2308 at the separation between 2306 and 2308 The photo in Fig. 5 shows the west side of 2308 beyond the lower deck and into a dark area on the right side of the photo. The proximity of the two residences is due to the fact that the residence at 2306 was built with almost no setback. In contrast, Fig. 5 shows the more considerable setback that exists at 2308. The dark area depicted in Fig. 5 is the space previously discussed that is being enclosed to accommodate an internal staircase. The proposed 3' walkway will approximately start where indicated by the white arrow and follow the house wall. It is again clear from the photo and proposed plans that the portion of the lower proposed project has no significant visual impacts to the enjoyment of the environment by the residents at 2306. 0 Visual MIP24ct As part of the improvements, a portion of the lower porch, facing west, which is currently glass, will become solid wall. Also, the existing west window on the lower bedroom will be significantly reduced in size. These changes have the effect of reducing light coming from the lower porch and west side of the house, and are an improvement to existing conditions and to the lighting impact on neighbors at 2306. Updated replacement window walls will not result in significant visual impacts to neighbors at 2306 or 2310. Analysis of Street Level Modifications in the Back of the Property on 2306 Fig. 6 Looking west from the upper sun porch at 2308 toward the Bay and 2306. The photo in Fig. 6 shows the existing floor to ceiling windows, doors and handrail. The proposed improvements to 2308 will replace the existing glass, doors and handrail with updated energy efficient windows and doors. The window walls at 2308 are an existing condition and the renovation replaces old inefficient floor to ceiling glazing with modern energy 'i Lta 1111D C M ,�".i i efficient windows, doors and glass safety panels. The safety panels will be flush mounted to the wall. As with virtually all waterfront properties along Mar East, the existing windows at 2308 start almost at floor level and extend to ceiling height, thereby generating some pre - existing light flow. Depending on where one is at 2306, it is already possible to see light from the existing windows at 2308. The proposed modifications increase this window area only slightly. Thus it is VIA's conclusion that there will be no significant visual impacts to 2306 Mar East caused by the slight expansion of this existing window condition. We would also note that the primary views of 2306 are oriented away from 2308, towards the Golden Gate Bridge, the City and Angel Island, and the proposed improvements do not negatively impact these views. Analysis of Visual Impact between 2308 and 2310 Fig. 7 Looking at 2310 from lower deck at 2308 Visual impact i #cps The photo in Fig. 7 was taken from the existing lower deck at 2308 looking toward 2310. Along this elevation, the 2308 residence presently has an operable window 4 feet wide and glass doors approximately 12 feet wide. The project proposes to replace the operable window with doors approximately 8 feet wide. The impact of increased light to 2310 from this window replacement is no greater than the impact to 2310 from other neighboring residences, including the impact from 2306, which directly faces 2310. The project makes an additional small, insignificant window change on the side of the residence adjoining 2310, that is a minor and represents an insignificant visual impact. 9 Visual Ad IeA PSIS Fig. 8 Looking at 2310 from upper floor at 2308 This photo was taken from the sun porch of the top level of 2308. The existing windows and glazing will be replaced with floor to ceiling windows. The handrail will be a glass panel mounted nearly flush to the exterior wall. The replacement and slight modification of existing windows within the existing footprint of the house is essentially improving an existing condition and will not result in a significant increased adverse visual impact. The two homes already have light impacts given the proximity and the existing windows, and those impacts are only modestly increased by the modification proposed at the upper level. 10 Visual Analysis Visual Impact between 2308 and 2306 at the Upper Level on the Bay Side Fig. 9 Looking from the Bay at the relationship of 2308 to adjacent neighbors at 2306 and 2310 The photo in Fig. 9 shows the position Ofneighbors' homes in relationship ho Dr. \Nilton'Shome. It can be seen in the photo that Dr. Wilton's home, in the center, is pushed well back behind the properties of both adjacent neighbors, both which jut out into the Bay. The primary views Qf 2306 and 2310 are oriented toward the Bay, San Francisco, Angel Island and the Golden Gate Bridge. 11 Viso d ;m� act n sls r Fig. 10 Photo showing 2308 in the context of nearby homes. This figure shows that the orientation of the primary views from 2306 is toward San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. It also shows the large amount of tree screening between 2306 and 2308, affirming that the 3' walkway on the lower level of 2306 is easily tucked away between 2308 and the tree screening and the 16' solid wood fence, again reinforcing the conclusion that the project will result in no significant visual impacts. Nighttime Lighting The nighttime lighting is an existing condition for the upper sun porch and lower deck at 2308. The replacement glass walls and doors and the few other window modifications will not add any new source of light and glare. It is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5 that the tree screening and the solid wood 16' wallJfence on the property line with 2306 will block what little fugitive light there may be from walkway safety lights or a door lamp. As such, it is our conclusion that there will be no significant visual impacts. In a previous appeal, the appellants presented a slide that depicted light emanating from Dr. Wilton's home at 2308 as sharp edged cones of light. (See 13 of 28 of the Wickert presentation at the Tiburon Town Council Meeting Appeal in August 15, 2012.) This presentation and argument with respect to light behavior is scientifically incorrect. Light behaves differently. The slide suggests that that the light would appear on the appellants' property like focused beams 12 Visual arn Da, c of flashlights or headlights. But in fact, lights that emanate from widows diffuse in a scattered pattern spreading light in all directions and because they are not concentrated the effect is much less glaring than was represented by appellants. The appellants' presentation also failed to consider the benefits, from a lighting perspective, that they will realize by the proposed project. A portion of the lower porch, facing west, which is currently glass, will become a solid wall as part of the bedroom improvement. Also, the existing west window on the lower bedroom will be significantly reduced in size. These changes have the effect of reducing light emanating from the lower porch and west side of the house, thereby improving existing conditions for neighbors at 2306.With the reduced glazing on the west side of the residence, toward 2306, the proposed project at 2308 will not produce any adverse nighttime visual impact. The impact to 2310 is duplicative to the existing condition. Any new light sources resulting from the lower deck walkway or main entry extension will not be significant due to the location and more than sufficient screening from trees and the solid wood 16' fence on the property line. Conclusions and Findings The project does not represent a significant increase in light impact to neighboring properties. The arguments against the project, with respect to lighting, are not representative of the actual lighting impact that will occur from the improvements and in some cases the arguments fail to recognize the benefits that will be realized by features of the proposed design. In addition, VIA believes that the significant screening between 2308 and 2306 minimize the light impact. For this reason, VIA supports the project and does not have any proposals to make with respect to mitigation of the light impact caused by the project. 13 5i a Mn 1L Analysis Statement of Qualifications Visual Impact Analysis LLC ( VIA ) is a computer graphics services firm providing computer - generated, or manipulated, photosimulations of proposed projects, developments and associated engineering information. The focus is assessing and analyzing the project specifics. VIA meets the requirements of all CEQA /NEFA report analysis and corresponding documentation. For 20 years the quality of VIA's work has made the company's services of particular value in the production of Environmental Impact Reports, Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements and Initial Studies. VIA is fully conversant with BLM's Visual Resource Management System (VRMS) and FHwA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects as well as SMS regional objectives of the U.S.D.A Forest Service. VIA provides visual reference materials of sufficient accuracy that they can be confidently relied upon by agencies reviewing EIR's, EA's and EIS's, by planners, engineers, architects, attorneys, developers, scientists, and environmental consultants, and by the general public, as real and true representations of the visual impact of a proposed project or to visually communicate complex engineering or other data. When creating photosimulated reference images and graphics, VIA relies on engineering plans and data, topographic maps, and architectural and landscaping plans. When necessary, particularly if sensitive line -of -sight issues, rugged terrain, or controversial visual impacts are involved, topographically accurate 3- dimensional Digital Terrain Models (DTM) models are developed. These can be manipulated to show grading, landscaping, or the placement of architectural and engineering structures from any point of view. VIA offers particularly competent representations of proposed earthworks, large engineered structures and landscaping. Full terrain modeling, rendering and analysis are offered. Landscaping elements can be digitally montaged into site photographs, with photorealistic results. Growth of landscape elements can be calculated as well, so that it is possible to demonstrate the effects of planting and site mitigation, given five -, ten- or twenty -year projections. VIA is a State of California Certified Small Business Enterprise. Visual Impact Analysis, LLC P.O. Box 1926, Novato, CA 94948, Ph: 415 897 5505, Fay: 415 897 3373 http://tiA'14'W.vistialinipactanali,sis.com I -knal SiS Harry Benke Owner /Partner - Visual Impact Analysis LLC Senior Project Manager - Visual Analysis Expert / Photosimulation Production / Visual Resources Inventory Qualifications Summary Harry Benke is the Project Director for the visual analysis services provided by Visual Impact Analysis LLC. Mr. Benke personally executes, or oversees the execution of all photosimulations. With over 25 years of visual impact analysis experience he has extensive experience in the issues of project development, CEQA and NEPA, and in the specific issues of visual impacts. His talents in mathematics, design, and his years of computer programming combine for a unique ability to understand, address, and accurately simulate, matters of visual impact significance. He has an extensive knowledge of multiple engineering disciplines and their interaction as they relate to project design and to visual resources. His understanding of complex engineering issues allows Mr. Benke to effectively support and participate with a project team. Mr. Benke is highly experienced and sensitive to lighting, shadowing, masses and surrounding components. His teaching of 3D computer modeling along with his computer programming and computer language skills, help him to develop evolving new methodologies and apply new technologies to visual analysis. Mr. Benke has participated in over 250 visual impact analysis projects. Education. Training BLM Visual Resource Management Training; Course 8400 -05, Las Vegas, NV 2009 Instructor /3D Computer Modeling- Computer Arts Institute, San Francisco, CA 1986 -88 Sculpture - California College of the Arts, Oakland, CA 1972 -75 Mathematics - Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 1968 -72 Professional Affiliations American Mathematical Society 1 Mathematical Association of America Professional Nistory Visual Analysis Specialist — Visual Impact Analysis LLC 1989 - Present Areas of specialty • Photosimulations —from detailed realism to massing • Visual Resource Inventories • Shadow Studies • Night Lighting Simulations • Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) • Nighttime LED Signage Simulations • Signage Simulations and Studies • Peer Review • Panoramic Digital Photography • Color Selection Studies and Camouflage Techniques • Exhibits and Simulations for Negotiated Legal Documents • Scenic Quality Assessments • Visually Sensitive Design Strategies • Landscape and Vegetation Simulation • Reclamation and Restoration Simulations • Visual Mitigation Strategies • GIS support • Corporate Identity Instructor 13D Computer Modeling - Computer Arts Institute, San Francisco, Ca 1986 To 88 • Taught among the first courses offered in the U.S. in 3D modeling and computer graphics. 2