Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2013-11-20 (3)To: Tiburon Town Council Members Date: November 20, 2013 RE: 26 Apollo Appeal to Town Council JY NOV 2 O 2013VLJ PANNING DIVISION I LATE MAIL # Pµ � We wanted to write to express our strong support for the Bell's home renovation plans at 26 Apollo Road, which is seven doors down from our newly rebuilt home at 12 Apollo Road. We support their design, including a second story, for numerous reasons including the following. • To deny this application would be to ignore the precedent already set in the neighborhood where numerous reasonable second story designs have been constructed. Of the 22 designs that currently exist in Belveron, four properties are on the "interior island" of Belveron East, three of which are on Apollo Road. Furthermore, three of those four second story remodels were approved after the adoption of the 1990 Zoning Ordinance that discourages second stories in predominantly single -story neighborhoods. Finally, all of the Bell's immediate neighbors, except one, support the project as designed. Thus it seems that the Design Review Board has decided to apply a unique and arbitrary standard to the 26 Apollo project in choosing not to approve "any second story design." The 1990 Tiburon Zoning Ordinance noted above does make allowances for second stories where increased setbacks and site conditions allow mitigating the potential negative impact of such second stories on neighboring properties. The combination of two deep lots (at both 26 Apollo and 27 Juno) provides a uniquely long span of 140 feet between these two homes. Our original home, in contrast, was located only 35 feet from our backyard lot line. The deep lots at both 26 Apollo and 27 Juno will greatly diminish the visual impact of the proposed second story on the backyard neighbor, which can be further mitigated with modest hedges /screening, as is typically applied throughout Tiburon. • Belveron Gardens was a "tract development" built in the early 1950's to accommodate returning GIs from the war. All of the single -story tract homes were basically identical, and averaged 1,000 square feet with 3 beds and 1 bath. To suggest that Belveron's "character" (if such is summed up in the term "single- story ") must be preserved dramatically undermines the potential of this wonderful community, which includes so many new young families who have paid a premium to live here. Today's modern family wants and demands more — both in terms of livable indoor space, and outdoor play areas. Outdoor space is especially precious in Belveron East because we have smaller lots (on average 7,500sf) than the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance was designed for (10,000 +sf lots). The ongoing impacts of cannibalizing our lots to retain a single -story character are far reaching — environmentally, from a safety perspective (more kids playing in the street), and from a quality of life perspective. Property owners should be allowed, and encouraged, to design projects that are sensitive to the neighborhood and environment, as well as the immediately affected neighbors. Projects should be evaluated by the DRB on their individual merits and impacts, especially if they fit within the Code's guidelines, rather than according to some narrow, outdated, blanket definition of an area's "character." This is a wonderful neighborhood that is continuing to modernize and evolve in a healthy, responsible, and tasteful way. Of all the lots in Belveron East, 26 Apollo in particular seems an excellent candidate for a second story based on its deep lot characteristics and distance from neighboring properties. Above all, we feel this project will do much to enhance the beauty, safety, and family - friendly environment in the Belveron East neighborhood, which we greatly enjoy and appreciate. Best, Jonathan Lacey & Kristina Wollan 12 Apollo Road (415) 937 -5979 Kyra O'Malley From: Shelley Pisenti <shelleypisenti @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:58 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Subject: Fw: Support for 26 Apollo - - - -- Forwarded Message - - - -- From: Shelley Pisenti <shelleyPisenti(c ) yahoo.com> To: "dwatrous(a)ci.tiburon.ca.us" <dwatrous c(D.ci.tiburon.ca.us >; <ccashman(�townoftiburon.org> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:48 PM Subject: Support for 26 Apollo Design Review Board, "ccash man (a�townoftiburon. org" LATE friAlL #1L.LL I have lived at 17 Apollo for 5 plus years now and have watched this neighborhood flourish into a wonderful community. I am unfortunately unable to attend tonights meeting with regret, but would like to express my support for the Bell family project at 29 Apollo. This little community is one of happy block, holiday parties, caroling, and support of growing families. I am one person with a young child who chooses to live in this community for many reasons. Safety, community support, education opportunities and overall a feeling of what every parent wants their child to grow up remembering. Recognizing the issues currently being raised, there is truly no privacy. Whether it a two story home or a basic unchanged rental like mine, I hear everything that happens in the surrounding kitchens and backyards of this area. It pleases me to hear kids calling their friends from behind the fences asking if the other can play. It is a heartwarming neighborhood that is quickly being divided over a single design plan. Which becomes heartbreaking instead of heartwarming. Safety was the foremost reason I chose to live here. My son can safely play in the front yards and even street, but it is a constant worry of speeding vehicles. The current trend of the homes are to increase interior space on small lots, often jeopardizing yards due to not being able to "go up" but rather being told to spread out. With that idea, a home with "up" space can provide increased safety if they are allowed to build larger rooms such as playrooms, therefore decreasing the risk of children becoming injured or even worse by irresponsible drivers tearing through a community with many small children enjoying the outdoors with peers. Simply said, the Bell project has been admirably tweaked to provide appropriate space with deep consideration to the neighborhood and the surrounding homes. The design fits well and provides increased value to other homes which of course is a strong benefit to Tiburon in general. We all pay top dollar to be in this area and many work extremely hard to continue a healthy growth for our families and community friendships. Please approve the current design for this project and understand the need for improvements for the entire Belveron area as it is becoming a premier place to raise a family and live in Tiburon. Thank you kindly, Shelley Pisenti 17 Apollo Rd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Kvra O'Malle From: Jennifer Barnes <jenniferbarnesca @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:13 PM To: Kyra O'Malley; Connie Cashman Cc: Dad Barnes Subject: 26 Apollo Road Project: Letter of Support LATE MA� l� I Dear Town Council, My husband, Jeff Barnes, and I are supportive of the Bell's new dwelling as planned at 26 Apollo Road. We have lived in the neighborhood for 11 years, and completed an extensive remodel in 2005. The Bell remodel, while two stories, is well within what others have done in both one and two story remodels. We have an addition that was existing when we purchased the home that is 18 feet tall in elevation, and only a few yards from the rear fence. The Bell's proposed project is just 22 feet in elevation and total of 140 feet away from the rear dwelling, so should not be an issue relative to the precedent that has been set in terms of other remodels being approved. In addition there are several 2 story properties that are directly adjacent to the Bell property, again demonstrating that they are well within the acceptable approved projects within the neighborhood, and have not taken on any variances in their current design. Please note our support of the project, and please do consider an approval for this family. Best Regards, Jeff and Jennifer Barnes 9 Apollo Road Tiburon, CA 94920 NOV `LO lui� PLANNING DID LATE MAIL# PH -I November 20, 2013 Tiburon Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall I) 1505 Tiburon Boulevard EPLANNINGD'VISION ' 013 U Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 27 Apollo Road, Tiburon Dear Councilmembers, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening about the proposed project. My wife and I, with our two younger children, reside at 6 Apollo Road. I am here to express our firm support for the Bells' application for construction of a new single- family dwelling, as originally applied and revised. We recognize that the Town's review of this project has become highly controversial and dramatic. While I certainly understand and respect all the positions taken, especially those outlined by the Thors, I nonetheless strongly believe that the Design Review Board's denial of both the original and revised design application was unfounded. It is undeniable that the Bells are within the general zoning, height and lot coverage requirements. However, the true issue in controversy here is the legitimacy of a fundamental disagreement between neighbors over whether second stories should be permitted in Belveron. Unfortunately, rather than diffusing this ideological dispute, I regret to say that the Design Review Board has encouraged further divide by misdirecting site plan review through an improper reading and application of Section 16- 52.020(H3) of the Zoning Ordinance. In relevant part, Section 16- 52.020 (H3) first states that "the height, size and /or bulk of the proposed project bears reasonable relationship to the character of the buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important." I believe it is clear that the Bells' proposed project demonstrates a reasonable relationship to the character of buildings in the neighborhood. Setting aside for the moment the controversial issue of second stories, many of the Design Review Board members conceded that the project's design was nice and appropriate. Therefore, as far as the Board is concerned, the second story aspect itself was the only factor violated the common character prong of the ordinance. This belief was demonstrated by Boardmembers statements to the effect that second stories should outright be banned in Belveron, at a minimum in the center streets such as Apollo. However, according to Boardmember Tollini at least 9 houses have second stories. In light of the above language, I believe this is where the Design Review Board's justification dangerously deviates from what is permitted under the Ordinance. Clearly, since at least 9 houses in the neighborhood contain second stories, it must logically and legally follow that an application for a second story dwelling should be allowed if it bears a reasonable relationship to the character of other buildings, whether being single or second stories residences in the neighborhood. The question here isn't how many other second stories exist, but rather how the Bells' second story compares in character to others. As you can see, there is nothing in the language of the Ordinance which grants the Design Review Board with the right to outright ban second story residences, either partly or completely within a neighborhood. The analysis is one of common character and since precedence exists, a case by case determination must be utlizied. Instead, the Design Review Board has taken the third sentence in this paragraph which provides: "For example, in neighborhood's consisting primarily of one -story homes, second story homes shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." I believe that this additional language is a mere example of the common character analysis that the Board can employ. Therefore, the Design Review Board should not give it binding legal significance. Despite how it may have been interpreted, this explanatory portion of the Ordinance does not state that second stories are not allowed in neighborhood's having predominantly single story residences, rather, it simply provides the Board with guidance on how to consider whether a building bears reasonable relationship in character to other buildings in the neighborhood. Furthermore, even assuming I am incorrect in above belief, the language itself strictly interpreted clearly provides that second story residences should either be (1) "discouraged" or (2) "permitted with increased set backs or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood ". Therefore, pursuant to this language, a second story project which is outside of common character should either be discouraged or modified to minimize its impact. Again, no where in this portion of the Ordinance is the Design Review Board granted the unfettered right to outright ban second story residences. To the contrary, I posit that under situations where the Applicant has modified to minimize its impacts, the Design Review Board must approve the project. In sum, the Design Review Board has exceeded its authority and erroneously denied the Bells' application. I believe the Council's consideration must be whether the Bells' design is within the common character of the neighborhood (not the fact that they are building a second story). Given the Design Review Board's own complimentary review of project's design and the fact that there is a clear precedence for second stories of this style, size and height in the neighborhood, I respectfully submit that the Council has no legitimate grounds for finding that the Bells' second story design is outside of character unless there exists convincing evidence that the project would impermissibly intrude on the neighborhood. It is here where I recognize and sympathize with the Thor's privacy concerns. The Council must pay extraordinary attention to the privacy issue looking at such factors as the angle of windows from the Bells' top story to living areas at the Thor's residence, distances, mitigating factors such as fences and trees, etc. If this Council finds that the Thor's privacy concern is misplaced or that the Bells can reasonably minimize potential impacts through other design modification, then this Council is legally obligated to approve this project, irrespective of their opinions surrounding this ideological dispute or force of support for or against this project. Thank you for your consideration. Page Beykpour Tammy Beykpour yra O'Malley From: Catherine Soper <catherine.soper @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:01 PM To: Kyra O'Malley Cc: Connie Cashman; Suzanna Bell; Nick Bell Subject: Support for 26 Apollo Road Ms. O'Malley, I am writing in support of the Bell's project at 26 Apollo Road and would like to express why I support this project and the importance for the future of the Belevron neighborhood. Many people will bring up their privacy and their views which in a perfect world, everyone wants. But let's be realistic, this is a flat neighborhood with homes very close to one another. I have no issues with my immediate neighbors but because we all have one stories and limited backyard space, I hear everything in their backyards, this is no privacy. This is a very family friendly and a sought after neighborhood for families with young children. When you think of current family needs and dynamics, and how they have changed in recent years, what worked for the first families who lived in these neighborhood has evolved throughout the years. This is no different now, what has recently worked for the last generation (empty nesters and soon to be empty nesters), no longer fits the needs for many of today's families. From blended families to remote work office NOV 2 0 2013 PLANNING DIVISION LATE MAIL #m � locations that require a dedicated home office, today's needs are much different than they were as recent as a half generation ago. Safety of our young children is a given, with decreased yard space, kids end up playing baseball, soccer and sports on the street. There have been several instances of cars driving way too fast, what happens when one gets hit? The character and the charm of Belevron is important, I love that I can walk out my door and see different styles and heights of homes and love that it is not a cookie cutter neighborhood. Instead of this neighborhood progressing and raising the standards, it is slowly becoming a group of condo commandos enforcing a "Belevron special" in the style of how they want the neighborhood. The future of this neighborhood would like the standards raised, values to increase and be proud of our neighborhood. We support this project as well as second stories and development to improve Belevron. Kind Regards, Cathy and Mike Soper 19 Apollo Road Kyra O'Malley To: margotgeitheim @yahoo.com Subject: typo free! Town council Letter in SUPPORT of the BELL home's second floor plans! - - - -- Original Message - - - -- NOV Z 0 2013 D From: margot geitheim [mailto :margotgeitheim @yahoo.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:33 PM PLANNING DIVISION To: ccashman @townoftiburon.ca.us Cc: Kyra O'Malley Subject: typo free! Town council Letter in SUPPORT of the BELL home's second floor plans! This is the same letter, withOUT TYPOS! THANKS, margot geitheim... Dear Town Council, LATE MAIL #PH I am a neighbor of the Bells in Belveron East, the wonderful 'ASTRONAUT' road neighborhood in Tiburon. (The Bells live on APOLLO, I live on ( #63) MERCURY, ... and the other two roads in our neighborhood are JUNO and VENUS!) At any rate, I am NOT their best friend and I do NOT (yet!) have a second story myself. But I LOVED their plans and was VERY surprised and annoyed that the planning board made an 'opinion' that our neighborhood was fine the way it was! (What gives them the RIGHT to decide we all are second class citizens who deserve to live like sardines? H 11 1 was insulted!) !!! Well, in that case, they should have approved the Bell's plans! There are some second stories, and some single stories; I frankly, find the single stories that are SPLATTED over their entire lot, MORE of an issue, than the second story homes. (IE: the more dirt you cover up, the LESS earth there is to absorb the heavy rains we get in the winter, ., pushing your runoff, guess where? Right next to your property!) Ah, so if you're trying to keep the neighborhood the 'same,' ... then guess what, H!, ... the BELLS' plans fit that description PERFECTLY. Furthermore, our neighborhood had a block party committee and many of us donated $25 a year for those parties and some landscaping up front if there was money left over. Apparently, some of the people in this group, ie: BENA, ... thought that meant we'd given them the right to speak for us! One resident, who doesn't even live CLOSE to the Bells herself, (And has one of those 1 story homes 10 feet from the edge of the roadway!), spoke at the last meeting and stated, "Well, I spoke to a mom who said she was INTIMIDATED by the Bells because their kids were in school with the Bell children." THIS IS HEARSAY at best, a lie at worst. I mean, maybe that same lady was actually INTIMIDATED by that BENA board member making THAT statement! Who knows? So please don't make any assumption or listen to any hearsay. Moving right along, ... I don't think an immediate neighbor should be allowed to thwart a homeowner's plans, second story or not, just because THEY don't want it. Let me give you a reason why; In my own situation, (63 MERCURY), a home is being built on VENUS directly above me, ... and the project is growing and changing as we speak. I spoke up at their first planning meeting, briefly, and basically said, 'as long as they get everything approved by YOU - the planning dept. - I'm happy.' I mean, I'm not an architect or a structural engineer, what do I know? Anyway, .. but let's say that same neighbor sells their house one day, ... and the NEW OWNER comes to MY hypothetical planning department meeting, ... and says, NO NO NO! 1 I mean, is that fair? Or, would that be fair? So, no, ... I don't think ONE single homeowner should have the right to, again, rain on somebody else's homeowner dreams. Last but not least, I love that the BELLS will be LIVING in this home, ... and that they have chilydren in the schools and really need the space. Nothing against investors who build homes on spec, but I think it should be noted, that it's the FAMILIES who need to get their kids in our school district, who really DRIVE UP the REAL ESTATE prices in Tiburon, because they HAVE TO OWN a home here by a certain date. So, it behooves you, as Town Council members, to honor a REAL families' request to build a nice comfortable family home for their loved ones. I lied, this is the LAST but not least comment; To people who worry about Belveron East becoming a magnet for developers who want to build mega mansions, ... I say this; With all the beautiful views in Tiburon and Belvedere, there just isn't enough MONEY in making a mega mansion in our VIEW- DEPRIVED little old Belveron East. Why buy a house that gives you a view of a couple flowers and trees and maybe a couple neighbors homes ? ? ?, when that same amount of money will buy you a view of the GGB? I mean, look at the LAGOON neighborhood in Belvedere! - There's a nice mixture of single and two story homes there, on similar sized lots. In FACT, those homes are so close to the water, I would think THEY should be getting the planning department's attention, not ours! But nonetheless, the BELVEDERE LAGOON homes are proof that second story houses absolutely do NOT ruin a neighborhood. Anyway, thank you very much for your time and for listening! Sincerely, Margot Geitheim 415 - 789 -8869 P.S..... Have a fabulous day! DEAR TOWN COUNCIL, ... I removed the typos of the letter I just emailed! Sorry! margot geitheim oo.com >, Kvra O'Mal From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: November 19, 2013 Dear Connie, Katie Vasicek <katie_vasicek @msn.com> Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:14 PM Connie Cashman Suzanna Havden; Kyra O'Malley 26 Apollo Road Project NOV 19 2013 D PLANNING DIVISION We are writing to express our strong support for the proposed Bell project at 26 Apollo Road in Tiburon. We have examined the plans carefully and believe that the changes to their home would positively impact our neighborhood, as well as surrounding communities. When we moved into this neighborhood in 2006, it was apparent that the area was in transition. The small, run down bungalow homes have slowly been transformed into beautifully updated homes that help snake our neighborhood more attractive. These newer homes also meet the needs of today's families ��ho want extra living space, yard space, and in some cases, in -home office space. We have seen countless young families move to this neighborhood who invest a lot of time and money into making it a more desirable place to live and we want to support others who wish to do the same. Since this neighborhood was first built, Tiburon has gone through a huge transformation. Affluent families who are buying homes in Belveron today pay a premium for their properties and many have an expectation that they can renovate and bring homes up to certain standard, which meet the demands of growing families and reflect the purchase price for their home. It would be unfair to deny families the ability to upgrade their homes when they pay top dollar for real estate in this conununity. We feel the Bell's remodel design would be a great addition to our lovely neighborhood. The fact that their design includes a partial second story will only add the architectural diversity of our neighborhood and will be an added benefit. There are many other two -story homes in our neighborhood, some of which are very close to the Bell's property and have no impact on privacy. Our next -door neighbors at 22 Apollo Road have a two -story home, which has no impact on our privacy whatsoever. And two doors down from us at 16 Apollo Road also has a partial two -story home, which is also not causing privacy issues. 1 The Bell's project clearly follows the building guidelines for this neighborhood and they are not asking for any variances for the size or scope of their project. As well, the Bells have made great efforts to address the concerns of one neighbor by reducing their roofline, which was already well within design guidelines. The rejection of this project would concern us for numerous reasons: • Potential home buyers may not want to invest in this neighborhood if they know that they cannot count on designing a home within the regulated guidelines. • Lack of investment and the inability to expand property size will bring property values down, which will negatively effect home owners in this neighborhood, as well as the town of Tiburon, which will receive less income related to property taxes. • By not allowing partial two- stories, homeowners will be forced to use up more of the green space in this neighborhood, which will lesson access to outdoor living and healthy lifestyles for families. In closing, we strongly urge you to approve the Bell's project. It is a well thought out plan and will impact our neighborhood in many positive ways. Kind Regards, Katie and Rick Vasicek ■�a,..va..o ® d...P To The Mayor of Tiburon Mr. Emmet O'Donnell f TG NOV 1 9 2013 T TOM OYM Our family has resided in this community since 1954 when my grandfather bought our house at 26 Juno Rd.We are writing to express our concern about the Bell family's proposed second story re -model of their 26 Apollo Rd. in the Belveron East. Our concern is that allowing second story remodels here, will drastically change the "character of Belveron East. The" character "of this neighborhood includes, single story "ranch style homes" that are consistent in size and design, but still allow individual expression. Houses close together,with flat streets safe for walking , or for kids to play. Including are the need for neighbors to be mindful, and respectful of each others property, individual privacy, and right to access surrounding natural beauty, via views or trails Thus fostering a community spirit of mutual respect, friendly neighbors, and a sense welcome. These are the very qualities that have attracted so many to move here,and raise their children here. It seems that the Tiburon Town municipal code sec. 16 -52 -020 part #1 & #2 refers to these needs I quote pay particular attention to views and privacy"'. " Neighborhood character..... proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity" "For example, in neighborhoods consisting of primarily one story homes , second story additions shall be discouraged" The above concerns are part of sharing a community, and mutual respect needed to live in concert with others. Yes there are a few second story remodels in the the community, but almost all of them are on the outer periphery facing open space, or in a spot where the neighbors views, and privacy are not impacted. We have great concerns about allowing second stories here, because with it the character of the neighborhood will definitely change . With single stories being swallowed up by huge houses, causing many inhabitants to lose access to treasured views of Ring Mountain and open space. As was said by a member of Design Review at the first meeting, we attended re- 26 Apollo Rd." this is a great house, just the wrong place to build it" We implore you to stop second story re- models in Belveron East in keeping the character, design, and consistency of our community. Sincerely, margaret M. Peterson & Sheila Peterson 415 -43 -9424 ' LATE MAIL # PN -! 0 November 14, 2013 \rl LATE MAIL # tj a Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard PLANNING DIVISION Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, This is a letter in support of the Design Review Board's decision to deny the application for a two -story home to be built at 26 Apollo in Belveron East. As residents of this community for ten years, we have seen many homes remodeled in beautiful fashion while preserving the privacy of neighbors. This is a wonderful community with many young families. It is important that these families are given the chance to improve their homes and increase their size, but not at the expense of the privacy and views of their neighbors. All properties (but especially already remodeled properties) deserve the chance to maintain their values and not loose that value through loss of privacy. Improvement for one property should not come at the cost of another's value. Homes that are on the "exterior" of Belveron East have open space behind them, with only two neighbors and it would be appropriate for these homes to grow into two story homes. The homes that do not have open space behind them are constricted to comingled lots that are intimately close to their many neighbors' yards. In some cases up to six neighbors abutting one property. The backyard space of all of these homes are extensions of our homes, and the privacy of the backyards need to be protected by allowing expansion on one level. Precedents have been set in this area. The character of the Belveron East neighborhood is that of single story homes that were originally 1050 -1200 square feet. Many homes have been expanded to larger square footages of over 2000 square feet while remaining on one level. This should be continued for all the homes that don't have open space contiguous to the property. The history of two story development in the "interior" of Belveron East has been contentious, and in recent years many residents have made it clear that two story development causes more unrest and discomfort among residents. Other properties can be developed for two stories and there are plenty of other properties in Tiburon with two stories, but this is simply not the place for this type of expansion. To help Belveron East keep its current character, guard the privacy of Belveron East residents and protect the views of Ring Mountain, please support the Design Review Board's decision to deny the application for the two story home at 26 Apollo Road. Sincerely, im and Moira O'Neal 5 Apollo Road Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Scott Anderson ,o, 13 Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:08 AM To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) Cc: Peggy Curran; Diane Crane lacopi; Dan Watrous; Kyra O'Malley; Ann Danforth Subject: Councilmember request for materials relating to 26 Apollo Road appeal Attachments: 22 Mercury Avenue 2009 appeal materials.pdf Dear Councilmembers, A Councilmember has requested additional background materials for the 26 Apollo Road appeal item on your agenda for November 20tH The requested materials are from a somewhat similar appeal on a project proposed at 22 Mercury Avenue in 2009; Dibble, applicant; Boris et al, appellants. Attached is a file containing the Town Council resolution remanding the item to the DRB with specific direction, a copy of the Town Council staff report for the item, and a copy of the adopted minutes for the item. The applicants (Dibbles) never did re -file a revised project design and instead moved to another neighborhood in Tiburon. Per our usual procedure, the requested materials are made available to all Councilmembers. Sincerely, Scott Anderson G R `CV U 2 €'1J TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 11/18/2013 RESOLUTION NO. 03 -2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE REAPPLICATION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF FEES FOR A PROJECT AT 22 MERCURY AVENUE . WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009, the Town Council heard an appeal of the Design Review Board's August 20, 2009 approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new single - family dwelling at 22 Mercury Avenue (File #709047), filed by owners and applicants 3ennifer and Samuel Dibble; and WHEREAS, following extensive testimony at that hearing, the Town Council voted to remand the item to the Design Review Board for further review, hearing, and action. The Town Council provided specific direction to the applicants and the Design Review Board to consider in further addressing privacy and other unresolved project impacts as were identified by the Town Council at the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, the applicants have indicated a desire to pursue additional review of a project approval for the property, but have indicated that it might be several months before a revised application could be developed and submitted for review to the Design Review Board for consideration; and WHEREAS, the applicants have offered to formally withdraw the current application provided that the Town would not assess new fees for the filing of a revised application if such filing occurs within 18 months of the Town Council's remanding of the item to the Design Review Board; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that additional fees would not have been required of the applicants in the regular course of remanding of the application to the Design Review Board for further review, hearing and action; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that a substantial delay in pursuit of the application at this time may provide a valuable opportunity for thoughtful and reasoned discussion and collaboration by the applicants and neighbors and is a prudent course of action with no substantive economic effect on the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby agrees to waive the payment of application fees for a re- submittal of a revised project application for 22 Mercury Avenue, said waiver to be valid for a period not to exceed eighteen (18) months, for a submittal made prior to April 21, 2011, on the conditions that: 1) the applicants withdraw in writing the pending application (File #709047) within ten (10) calendar days of the adoption of this Resolution; and 2) any revised project application benefiting from this waiver shall reasonably incorporate the general direction of the Town Council from the October 21, 2009 appeal hearing in terms of reducing privacy and other unresolved project impacts. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 03 -2010 01106110 Page I oft PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on January 6, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ICHARD COLLINS, MAY TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: , DIANE CRANE IAGOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 03 -2010 01106110 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Design Review Board Appeal — Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval for Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct a new single family dwelling at 22 Mercury Avenue (Planning Manager Watrous) Property Address: 22 Mercury Avenue Assessor Parcel No.: 034 - 262 -31 Applicants: Sam & Jennifer Dibble Appellants: _ _Jeff_ &_Satoko Boris,_Chick_ &_Anne Ldtrich, Jim & Moira O'Neal, Rod & Nancy McLeod Director Anderson summarized the written staff report. He said that several second story homes had been approved in the Belveron East neighborhood and that the Design Review Broad had come up with different approaches to minimize the impacts on neighbors, such as limiting decks on second stories and additional landscaping. He noted that new fire regulations would limit the use of landscaping in this application as a mitigating tool; however, he said the Board had eliminated the deck from the second story master bedroom. Anderson said that although the Board had voted to approve the project, it was clearly a "close call" and compatibility with the neighborhood remained at the heart of the appeal, along with the loss of privacy to surrounding neighbors. Mayor Fredericks opened the hearing to the appellants. Jim O'Neill and Jeff Boris made the presentation on behalf of the four families who appealed, including the Lettrich's and the McLeod's. They presented their grounds of appeal, summarized below, utilizing photographs and slides. (Staffs responses to these grounds are contained in the written report.) 1) Loss of privacy to homes and yards of surrounding neighbors — Mr. Boris noted in a slide that the height of Town Hall at the weathervane was 22 feet and that the proposed Dibble home was 24 feet at its peak; both gentlemen noted that one -story homes "worked well" in the neighborhood, especially in the inland section they referred to as the "island "; they described in detail the impacts to the privacy of the surrounding homes and one across the street; Mr. O'Neal said that other second story applicants had worked more successfully with neighbors to resolve their differences; he said some of the applications contained only a master suite upstairs and noted that the Dibble home would be the largest second story with a master suite and additional bedrooms. 2) Loss of sunlight — Both speakers complained of light pollution and loss of sunlight; one said that he would have his view of the sunset completely blocked, in additional to the loss of one -two hours of sunlight during the day; O'Neal said that the DRB did not know of the new fire regulations when they approved the landscaping plan, and that not all of the board members came to visit the site, in any event. Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 3 3) Inconsistency with neighborhood character — The speakers noted the unique character of the neighborhood, the smaller house sizes from other areas of Tiburon, and that all the residents sought privacy, views and sunlight in their yards; O'Neal reiterated that a majority of the two - story homes were on the perimeter of the neighborhood, not in the middle "island "; of the 142 homes in Belveron East, the appellants showed the location on a map of the 45 homes that supported the appeal and eight homeowners who supported the project, per a petition that had been submitted. --4) Plan discrepancies --The appellants said.that there were inconsistencies between the site plan, floor plans, and landscape plans. 5) DRS precedent for overriding — The appellants said that the Board had seta precedent for overriding recommendations of staff and board members not present at the July 2, 2009 meeting. 6) Diversity of housing stock — The appellants said that the approval of the project would lessen the diversity of housing stock by promoting larger and more expensive homes and two -story dwellings instead of one -story homes. Mayor Fredericks asked the appellants to describe what they were asking, for the record. Mr. Boris said that the appellants would prefer to have a one -story home in that location, and if that was not possible, to at least reduce the size of the second story to be more in character with the neighborhood, perhaps allowing just a one - bedroom suite. Mayor Fredericks opened the hearing to the applicants. Architect Jim Malott, representing Jennifer and Samuel Dibble, acknowledged that change was difficult and that this was a neighborhood in the midst of change. He said that all the homes started out at 990 square feet, and that over 70% of them had been remodeled with some sort of addition. Malott said that if the Council insisted on a single story for these homes, it would use up the usuable space, leaving a 10 -foot strip of land around each building. He said that a second story, if designed properly, would result in greater land area for everyone. Mr. Malott noted that his clients had sought no variances in their application and that other remodels would certainly require variances if they were built today. He said that he had received 47 letters in support of the project. Malott said that the Fire Code regulations had been adopted since the application was submitted, and he described a new landscaping plan. Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Malott asked the Council to uphold the DRB's unanimous decision and noted their findings that the overall house design was compatible with the neighborhood, had a low slope roof, and other design features that broke up the "massing." He said the Board had properly considered all of the issues described by the neighbors. Applicant Jennifer Dibble addressed the Council. She said that they had met with all the neighbors and had incorporated every single change required by the Design Review Board. She said that she did not favor a single master suite on the second story because it was important to her, for reasons of safety and personal preference, to sleep on the same level as her children. Mrs. Dibble asked the Council to allow her family to move forward with their project. Council had some questions of the applicants which were answered by Mr. Mallot. Councilmember Slavitz asked about square footage of the rooms on the second story (450 square feet and a slightly larger master suite), and the distances from the street of the current house and proposed remodel. Councilmember Collins asked about wall heights (eight feet); Councilmember Gram asked for measurements from the middle of the room (eight feet to 10 feet, six inches). Mayor Fredericks opened the appeal to the public. A number of people spoke, including: • Dana Thor, Juno Road, said that in 20 years she had never seen such discourse and dissension over a project; that she and her husband had remodeled their home with the needs and character of the neighborhood in mind; that the homes all had flat back yards that adjoined each over and that the neighbors all respected the privacy of those yards. She said that while the Dibble's plans were attractive, they would impact the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. • William Melbostad, 17 -year resident, said that the conflict would affect the property values of the neighborhood; • Karen Halsey, Juno Road, asked the Council to reject this plan and require the applicants to work with the neighbors and respect the privacy of the neighbors; • Danny Gallagher, Juno Road, said that the Dibbles had listened well and had scaled back their second story which was nine feet lower than what was allowed in the neighborhood; said the project was a good addition to the neighborhood; • Vincent Pannepacker, Mercury Avenue, 17 -year resident, said that the neighborhood was comprised of great people and that he understood the frustration of the parties; he said that he rebuilt his home in 2000 and that some of his neighbors thought his project was on- going; said that this project was causing a disruption and had the contention was having a negative impact; suggested that there was a reason for the Town's guidelines and recommended a single story home; he said that the story poles "told the story" of the impacts on privacy of the surrounding neighbors and that he had built a great one -story home when he remodeled (adding that he never even considered a second story for the Town Council Minutes #17-2009 October 21, 2009 Page 5 reasons stated above); finally, he stated that the scale was disproportionate to the lot and would "stick out"; he recommended that not only this project, but future projects, be kept to scale to avoid the neighborhood turning into "Strawberry Point." • Marty Andrews, Apollo Drive, said that he had done a one -story remodel and still had plenty of yard space left; • Sharon Sand, Mercury Avenue, found fault with the effective of the proposed landscaping plan which included deciduous trees; e Rick Bracich, Mercury Avenue, said that he opposed the plan because the applicants did not work with the neighbors or make reasonable compromises; he said that more accommodation should be given to the immediate neighbors and that he had kept his neighbors in mind during his own remodel; that the second story was too big and not in character with the neighborhood; cited a DRB comment that it was top heavy and massive; said that some variances were good compromises, depending on the lot. • Richard McElreath, 4 Apollo Road, said that he had tried to remain neutral but was concerned about the neighborhood discord; that he planned a 2300 square foot remodel with a sizeable backyard and had received a variance to do so; • Kate McInerney, Mercury Avenue, 10 year resident and real estate agent, said that she had been on both sides of the issue; noted that property owners did have rights; but that the lot in question was on a curve which made it problematic; said that a second -story in that location would have a greater visual impact, so that the site was really an issue. Council asked Design Review Boardmember Michael Tollini for his comments. In particular, Councilmember Slavitz asked him to discuss the Board's discussions regarding the project's impact on the privacy of the Boris property, and any discussion regarding plantings. Mr. Tollini said that the Board's deliberations were in the record. He said that privacy was the primary focus of the Board, and the focal point was placement of the windows. He said that the back (bay) windows did not really have a view of the [Boris'] back yard and the other windows were pushed to the front of the house and the side yard and the [neighbor's] tomato plants. He said the same thing occurred on the eastern side of the house; and he noted that the roof terrace was also removed. Mr. Tollini said that while there was extensive use of landscaping in the plans, the Board did not discuss or make any conclusive findings regarding the screening impacts of landscaping. He said that vegetation was transient but a building was not. Councilmember Gram asked for comment on the impact the McLeods, who lived across the street from the project. Boardmember Tollini said that the Board had received a letter regarding the appellant's view of Ring Mountain being blocked. Tollini said that he walked the curb down to that location and found that the view from the appellant's front yard and garage was affected, but he said that it did not "stick out" in his mind nor was it deliberated at length by the Board. Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 6 Mayor Fredericks asked if it was his sense that the appellants could see that view from their livingroom. Mr. Tollini said that he could not recall. Mayor Fredericks returned the discussion to the public hearing. • Ed Thor, Juno Road, said that he shared a fence with the appellant's back yard and that they did see Ring Mountain; he said that he had "put money" into his remodel project in order to keep his view of Ring Mountain and that the appellant's view should be taken into consideration. • Matt Richter, Apollo Road, said that he was an architect and had rebuilt his home to 2300 square feet with four bedrooms and three baths and did not block any views; he added that if second stories could be done sensibly they can be appealing in this neighborhood but that in not the case in this application; he suggested that on the "inner lots," any second stories be limited to 500 square feet; he recommended that the project be sent back for a lower square footage on the second story. Councilmember Collins asked Mr. Richter the size of his lot; he said it was 7200 square feet. • Kevin Tinto, Mercury Avenue, said that he too was going through the Design Review process and had received approval of a one -story remodel; he said that the Dibbles were nice people and that he hoped they got the home they want; however, he said that the neighborhood was comprised of "average" people and that they had worked hard to keep it a "happy, friendly place;" he asked the Council to keep the beauty of the neighborhood while at the same time improving it. During the appellant's rebuttal, Mr. O'Neal said that vegetation could not be relied upon for privacy and that the setbacks were greater in other examples of two -story remodels in the neighborhood. He asked that the Council reduce the size of the home or move it further away from the neighbors for more privacy. Mr. O'Neal also said he spoke for Rod & Nancy McLeod, who spent a'lot of time "hanging out" in their front yard. Mayor Fredericks asked if the McLeod's could see Ring Mountain from their living room. Mr. O'Neal said that they could. In his rebuttal, Mr. Malott said that Ring Mountain was in the other direction. The Mayor replied that she could see it, or some mountain, from the McLeod's front yard. Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Berger stated that he understood the neighbors' concerns. At the same time, he said that the Design Review Board did a great job in reviewing the application. He said that there was no prohibition of second stories in the Town's guidelines, so the question for him was how well it had been designed. Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 7 In this application, the Vice Mayor said that the question of mass and bulk was a "close call ". He said the design was heavily articulated and the peak of the roof was handled well. With regard to the issue of privacy, Berger said that the views from the children's room on the second story did not seem to present a problem, but that the master bedroom was focused and looked down onto the neighbors' yards. The Vice Mayor said that he had drawn a sketch in which the design was turned and the master bedroom was "flipped around" to give the Dibbles the same square footage but would allow for more light and air. The design included a hip roof at the rear. Berger said that theses slight changes would include the same square footage on the second story, as well. The Vice Mayor said that Design Review Board had adequately adjudicated the issues and he would vote to partially uphold the appeal, with these modest changes, to solve the privacy problems that remained for the neighbors. Councilmember Slavitz said that it was a great idea to move the closet and bathrooms to the back of the second story, but that in his mind, the house still looked "massive" from the front and would impact privacy on both sides. He suggested removing the second bedroom from the second story and sliding it forward. Slavitz agreed that the Council could not legislate against second story additions; however, he said that this house was too big for a small lot and too close to the neighbors. Councilmember Collins concurred with the Vice Mayor's comments and agreed that the Design Review Board had done a good job. He said that Councilmember Slavitz' suggested changes would result in a de facto denial of the application. Councilmember Gram said that he had seen a number of applications in his 12 years on the Council. He said that there was no policy against second story additions and that it was possible to do them properly. He said that the needs of families had changed over time, and that the Belveron neighborhood was changing and the homes were being upgraded. He said that the job of the Council was to review each application individually. Gram said that while he liked the second story, the house in general seemed too bulky and that it represented too much of an invasion of privacy for the neighbors. Gram said that the Vice Mayor's ideas would result in a much prettier house. He said that Mrs. Dibble wanted to have her bedroom on the same level with her children and should be allowed to do so, and that Councilmember Slavitz' changes would eliminate two of the bedrooms on the second story. Mayor Fredericks said that she was a "policy person." She agreed that second stories are often appropriate and could be done appropriately. Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 8 The Mayor said that [FAR] maximums were guidelines and that variances could be neutral; she said that trade -offs between variances and setbacks should be evaluated on a lot -by -lot basis. Mayor Fredericks said she agreed with Councilmember Slavitz that this lot was uniquely situated and higher in elevation than surrounding lots which made the proposed structure seem to loom over the surrounding houses. The Mayor said that this second story affected so many neighbors that it warranted a second look. She said that it would be worth considering bringing the two bedrooms down to the first floor. Vice Mayor Berger said that there were two ways to go: to rotate the house or move one or both bedrooms downstairs. He said that he had seen the DRB reject requests for variances to reduce the bulk or mass of a structure but in this instance, the DRB had accepted the bulk but might ask for a hip roof and rotation. Councilmember Gram suggested giving the Dibble family and their architect a choice of re- design. Town Attorney Danforth attempted to clarify Council's direction and asked whether the applicants were being asked to reduce the square footage, shift the windows, or other specific requests. Councilmember Gram said that the application should be redesigned to incorporate the comments and concerns of the neighbors. Vice Mayor Berger said that foremost of the issues was privacy. Gram agreed, stating that the mass of the structure was not an issue as long as the privacy issues were addressed. In response to some comments about the Ring Mountain view blockage, Councilmember Slavitz commented that there was nothing in the Town's guidelines that said a view from a garage was a "protected" view. However, Slavitz said it would be desirable to reduce the mass of the structure. Councilmember Collins said that if the mass could be reduced somewhat, he would be in favor of approval, as long as the other admonitions of the Council regarding privacy were addressed, and that it should be a "simple" redesign. Mayor Fredericks concurred that the major concern was privacy which might be taken care of by rotating the structure. She said that the concern regarding the square footage of the structure and its mass, especially the second story, might be helped with a roof design or by moving bedrooms downstairs. Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 9 MOTION: To remand the application to the Design Review Board for further review based on the Council's comments. Moved: Berger, seconded by Slavitz Vote: AYES: Unanimous Councilmember Gram left the meeting at the conclusion of the appeal hearing. ACTION ITEMS — continued at 11:15 p.m. 1. Marin Clean Energy — Hear Presentation by Marin Energy Authority on Energy Service Provider (ESP) contracts; Public and Council comment (Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth) Mayor Fredericks re- opened the public comment portion. Joe Nation, State Assemblyman from 2000 -2006, co- author of AB 32, said he now taught public policy at Stanford University. Mr. Nation said that he was also representing PG &E. Mr. Nation said that the Marin Clean Energy initiative "missed the mark" in its efforts and he claimed that the adoption of the Community Choice Aggregation program would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, not guarantee rate pricing, and represented a long -term risk to participating public agency general funds. Mr. Nation presented a series of slides to illustrate his points. Council had a number of questions for Mr. Nation. Mayor Fredericks asked Mr. Nation what the percentage of renewable energy sources PG &E would have if it took out hydroelectric and nuclear power. Mr. Nation said that in 2010, it would reach 15 %. Vice Mayor Berger asked Mr. Nation whether PG &E promised lower CO2 emissions as part of its program. Mr. Nation said that the focus needed to be on emissions rather than renewable energy sources, and that he would chose nuclear power over natural gas or other sources. He said that he thought the Marin Energy Authority was grossly overstating its estimates of renewable sources it could offer and its estimates of emission reductions. Councilmember Slavitz said that the data presented showed that PG &E would not "get us" to the state - mandated levels of emission reductions; he said that PG &E would only be able to get a third of the way there. He asked Mr. Nation to comment on this. Mr. Nation suggested that Marin County get the SMART train up and running because 60% of the emissions were caused by transportations; other sources being dairies that produce methane gas, and other things. He said that PG &E would "do its fair share." Town Council Minutes #17 -2009 October 21, 2009 Page 10 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 21, 2009 Agenda Item: P ff'— Subject: 22 Mercury Avenue; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of a New Single - Family Dwelling; Jennifer and Samuel Dibble, Owners; Jim Malott, Architect/Applicant; Jeff and Satoko Boris, Chick and Anne Lettrich, Jim and Moira O'Neal, and Rod and Nancy McLeod, Appellants; File #709047; Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 262-31 Reviewed By:� PROJECT DATA Address: 22 Mercury Avenue Owners: Jennifer and Samuel Dibble Applicant: Jim Malott (Architect) Appellants: Jeff and Satoko Boris, Chick and Anne Lettrich, Jim and Moira O'Neal, and Rod and Nancy McLeod Assessor's Parcel Number: 034 - 262 -31 File Number: 709047 Lot Size: 7,884 Square Feet Zoning: R -1 (Single- Family Residential) General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Flood Zone: X (outside special flood hazard zone) BACKGROUND On August 20, 2009, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a new single- family dwelling at 22 Mercury Avenue. The neighboring residents at 3 Apollo Road (Jeff and Satoko Boris), 26 Mercury Avenue (Chick and Anne Lettrich), 5 Apollo Road (Jim and Moira O'Neal) and 21 Mercury Avenue (Rod and Nancy McLeod), hereinafter collectively referred to as "appellants," have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants are requesting approval for construction of a new, 20.9 foot high two -story single - family dwelling on the property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. Currently a one -story house occupies the property and would be demolished as part of this application. TOWN OF TFBURON PAGE 1 OF 9 .Y il.l r:, The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, one bedroom and 1 % bathrooms. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with two additional bedrooms and one bathroom. A two -car garage would be situated on the main level. Eight skylights would be installed on the roof of the house. A six foot (6') tall, wooden fence would be constructed along the side and rear property lines. The structure would be finished with light brown colored shingles with grey and white trim. The roof would utilize dark grey colored shingles. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,722 square feet, which is 66 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,365 square feet (30.0 %) of the site, which is the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -1 zone. No variance or floor area exceptions are proposed as part of this application. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD November 20. 2008 Meeting The applicants submitted a previous application (File #708189) for construction of a new 26.5 foot tall, two -story single - family dwelling on October 21, 2008. The main level of the proposed house included a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, laundry room and one half - bathroom. The upper level included a master bedroom suite along with three additional bedrooms and two bathrooms. A two -car garage was proposed on the main level. Nine skylights were to be installed on the roof of the house. The floor area of the proposed house was 2,777 square.feet, and the structure was proposed to cover 2,118 square feet (26.9 %) of the site. The application was first reviewed at the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, several neighbors raised concerns about the visual mass and bulk of the proposed house and possible privacy and sunlight impacts that would be caused by the new two -story house. The Board shared some of these concerns and concluded that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling was inconsistent with the character of the surrounding Belveron East neighborhood. The Board recommended that the extent of the second story portion of the house be reduced in size and the height of the house be lowered somewhat, and the Board encouraged the applicant to spread the house out more on the site. The application was continued to the December 18, 2008 meeting to allow the applicant to address these concerns. December 18.2008 Meeting The applicants submitted revised drawings for the project that did not change the building footprint or the floor plans for the house. The height of the proposed house was reduced between 4 and 5.6 feet (to a maximum height of 20.9 feet) by reducing the ceiling heights from 10 feet to 9 feet, lowering the roof pitch and building the house on a slab. A rear roof deck off the master bedroom and the raised first floor deck at the rear of the house were eliminated. The supplemental project description submitted by the applicant indicated that the location and heights of windows were modified, but the size and location of the windows shown on the exterior elevation drawings did not appear to have changed. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE Z OF 9 The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the December 18, 2008 meeting. At that meeting, the applicants stated that the changes to the project design were intended to respond to the concerns of the Board and neighbors regarding the height and visual mass of the house and possible privacy concerns. Several neighborhood residents spoke in support of the revised house design and the compatibility of the two -story design with the Belveron East neighborhood. Other neighbors generally located in closer proximity'to the site expressed concerns about potential privacy and sunlight impacts and felt that the visual prominence of the two -story house design was inappropriate for this site. The Design Review Board determined that while lowering the roof of the house helped lessen the mass of the building, the revised house design was still too top -heavy and would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Board suggested moving some of the bedrooms downstairs and initially voted to deny the application when it appeared that the applicants were unwilling to explore other designs for the house. After the applicants indicated that they would be willing to consider other design options, the Board rescinded its motion to deny the project and continued the application to the February 5, 2009 meeting. The applicants subsequently requested several additional continuances until the time allowed to process the application under the State Permit Streamlining Act was due to expire. At the request of Staff, the applicants withdrew the application on April 1, 2009. June 18. 2009 Meeting On May 6, 2009, the applicants submitted a new application (File #709047, the current application) with plans that were identical to those reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 18, 2008 meeting. No changes were made to the project design in response to the direction given by the Board at that meeting, although the applicants submitted written materials attempting to justify the previously reviewed design of the house. The Design Review Board reviewed the application at the June 18, 2009 meeting. Nearby neighbors again raised concerns about the mass and bulk of the house and potential privacy issues, while other, more distant neighbors supported the house design. The Board reiterated their previously raised concerns about the mass and bulk of the second story and that the house would be inconsistent with the character of thepeighborhood. The Board asked the applicants if they would be willing to modify their plans. When the applicants declined to make changes to the project, the Board voted (3 -2) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for adoption at the next Board meeting. Julv 2. 2009 Meeting At the July 2, 2009 meeting, a new architect (Jim Malott) for the project indicated that the applicants now intended to submit a new design for the proposed house. Two of the three Boardmembers who had voted to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of denial were absent from the meeting. The remaining members of the Board did not adopt the resolution of denial and instead voted unanimously to continue the application to the August 20, 2009 meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 9 I o %• . i.t)ilnLII I�CCCiI Auaust 20.2009 Meeting The applicants submitted new plans on July 21, 2009 that were substantially different from the design previously reviewed by the Design Review Board. Two bedrooms and one bathroom were eliminated from the upper floor, reducing the floor area of the second story from approximately 1,400 square feet to 975 square feet. The upper level was moved toward the street to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors to the side and rear of the site. The footprint and roofline of the house were also varied to minimize the visual mass and bulk of the house when viewed from the street and from adjacent homes. At the August 20, 2009 meeting, several adjacent neighbors reiterated their concerns about possible privacy issues and the incompatibility of the two -story house design with the character of the neighborhood. Several other Belveron East residents spoke in favor of the house design. The Design Review Board determined that the revised house design appropriately addressed the Board's previous concerns. The Board found that the changes to the roofline and increased setbacks for the second story area were effective and that the overall mass and scale of the house design was appropriate and compatible with the character of the Belveron East neighborhood. The Board believed that limiting second story additions in this neighborhood to the size of master bedroom suites, such as found in other two -story homes in the neighborhood, was unnecessary and would lead to less functional house designs. The Board voted 3 -1, with Boardmember Wilson opposed, to, conditionally approve the revised house design, but eliminated a rooftop deck leading from the second story master bedroom as a condition of approval. On August 31, 2009, the owners of the neighboring homes at 3 & 5 Apollo Road and 21 & 26 Mercury Avenue filed a timely joint appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1). BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are six (6) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The proposed house would result in loss of privacy to the homes and yards of surrounding properties. Staff Response: The proposed house would have the potential to affect the privacy of the adjacent properties at 3 & 5 Apollo Road and 26 Mercury Avenue. The following describes the relationship of the second story of the proposed house to these adjacent properties: 3 A ,polio Road: The second story would be 31 feet, 9 inches from the neighboring dwelling at its closest point. A series of high -sill windows would face in this direction from the master bedroom and bathroom. The bathroom window would be finished with obscured glass. The rooftop deck facing the adjacent home was not approved by the Design Review Board, and the door onto the deck was required to be replaced by a window matching the other high -sill bedroom windows. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 5 Apollo Road: The second story would be 61 feet, 9 inches from the adjacent residence at its closest point. The bedroom and hallway windows on the rear of the second story would be large and extend nearly to the roofline. 26 Mercury Avenue: The second story would be 35 feet, 6 inches from the neighboring home at its closest point. A high -sill bathroom window and two larger bedroom windows (intended to serve as emergency egress points to satisfy building code requirements) would face this adjacent property. The Belveron East neighborhood was developed with single -story homes in close proximity to each other. The original single -story development pattern protected the privacy of the rear yard areas, but the small size of building setbacks frequently lessened the privacy between neighboring homes. These privacy conditions have been somewhat compromised by second story additions in the neighborhood over the decades, but have been addressed by raising window sill heights to limit sight lines down onto adjacent properties and increasing the distance between second story elements and adjacent homes and yards. It should be noted that bedrooms and bathrooms, such as those located in the proposed second story, are usually more heavily used during early morning and evening hours when rear yards are less likely to be enjoyed, and less used during daylight hours when children are more likely to play in neighboring yards. The approved plans indicate screening trees and vegetation would be planted along the property lines to provide additional privacy screening between the second story of the proposed house and the adjacent homes: The Tiburon Fire Protection District has raised concerns about the proximity of potentially combustible vegetation to the proposed house, which may require the applicants to limit the size and number of trees between the house and the property lines. At the August 20, 2009 meeting, the Design Review Board was concerned about the possible privacy impacts caused by the master bedroom deck facing the home at 3 Apollo Road and required that this deck be eliminated. The Board evaluated the potential privacy impacts from the surrounding homes and determined that these concerns were not substantial enough to require changes to the design of the proposed house. Ground f2: The proposed house and vegetation would block sunlight to neighboring properties. Staff Response: The approved second story would be situated from 23'6" to 61'9" from the surrounding homes at 3 & 5 Apollo Road and 26 Mercury Avenue. These setbacks would substantially lessen the potential for this portion of the proposed house to block sunlight that would otherwise reach these residences. At worst, it is likely that the upper story would interfere with a small portion of sunlight at the end of the day at certain times of the year. The project architect presented a rough sunlight study at the August 20, 2009 Design Review Board meeting which indicated that the second story would not interfere with the sunlight for any nearby homes. The appeal notes that landscaping proposed around the perimeter of the site would form "a vegetated wall blocking sunlight from all neighbors." Some of the larger tree specimens proposed to be planted have the potential to block some sunlight to certain portions of the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 9 CH ,,;rJu surrounding homes and yards at particular times of the day and year, but are unlikely to create excessive shade for any adjacent property. As previously noted, the Tiburon Fire Protection District has raised concerns about the amount of combustible vegetation proposed to be planted close to the proposed house. It is likely that the landscaping plan will need to be substantially scaled back to comply with Fire District regulations. This would further lessen the potential of this vegetation to block sunlight to adjacent properties. Ground #3: The two -story design of the proposed house would be inconsistent with the character of the Belveron East neighborhood. Staff Response: Belveron East is a neighborhood in transition. The neighborhood is developed with predominantly single -story dwellings, but, in recent years, a number of homes have added second story living space to these one -story buildings. In most instances, the second story elements have been much smaller than the existing ground floor portions of the houses, in many cases amounting to the equivalent of an upstairs master bedroom suite. These relatively modest second story additions have met with the approval of the surrounding Belveron East residents and now blend in with the fabric of this established neighborhood. Section 16 -4.2.7 (c) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications) states that the Design Review Board should consider neighborhood character in the review of Design Review applications: "The height, size, and /or bulk of the proposed project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one- story homes, second -story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." The Design Review Board has previously determined that second story additions can be permitted in the Belveron East neighborhood. The relatively modest upstairs master bedroom suites approved for various other homes in the neighborhood have been generally centered above the ground floor in order to comply with the requirement to permit such improvements "with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood." The original house design for this application contained four bedrooms, three bathrooms and approximately 1,400 square feet of living area on the proposed second story. The Design Review Board determined that this design was too top -heavy and therefore incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The revised plan eliminated one bedroom and one bathroom from the second story, decreased the upper floor living area to 975 square feet and moved the second story toward the front of the site to reduce visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors to the side and rear of the site. The Board determined that these changes were substantial enough to minimize the intrusion of the second story on the neighborhood and resulted in a project design that was therefore compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 9 The subject lot is situated at the end of the "island" between Mercury Avenue and Apollo Road. The appeal states that due to this location "squeezed" between several other lots, the relationship of the size of the house to the size of the lot would be inconsistent with the character of the Belveron East neighborhood. Numerous different zoning requirements, including floor area ratio, lot coverage, building height and setbacks from property lines, are intended to insure that the size and location of a house bears a reasonable relationship to the size and configuration of the lot upon which it is located. The proposed house would comply with all zoning requirements for this property and the Design Review Board determined that the overall house design would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Ground #4: The submitted plans include discrepancies between the site plan, floor plans and landscape plan. Staff Response: The interior dimensions of the rooms shown on the landscape plan differ from those indicated on the approved floor plans, but the footprint of the house shown on the landscape plan matches that on the approved site plan. The approved site plan and floor plans govem the exact size and location of rooms of a house. The floor plan layout shown on a landscaping plan is illustrative and is not used to determine the approved size or location of the structures on the site. Ground #6: The Design Review Board set a precedent for overriding recommendations of Staff and Boardmembers not present at the July 2, 2009 meeting. Staff'Response: The Design Review Board usually only denies an application as a last resort, preferring that applicants work toward a project design that addresses issues raised by the Board and neighboring property owners. As previously noted, at the June 18, 2009 meeting a 3 -2 majority of the Board voted to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the subject application after the applicants declined to make changes to the project design. When the applicants reversed their position at the July 2, 2009 meeting by hiring a new architect and indicating a willingness to submit new plans for the proposed house, the Board voted to continue the application instead of adopting the resolution of denial in the hope that the revised project design would be more acceptable. This hope was realized at the August 20, 2009 meeting when a majority of the Board, including two members who had previously voted to deny the application, voted to approve the revised project design. At the July 2, 2009 meeting Staff recommended that the Board either deny the application or have the applicant withdraw the application and resubmit a new application with the revised plans. This recommendation was based on the fact that the applicants had not been charged additional filing fees to submit the second application for this house and would be extending a lengthy review process even further by submitting completely new plans. The Design Review Board acted within its proper discretion to continue the application without requiring submittal of a new application or additional fees. Ground #6: The approval of the proposed house would lessen the diversity of housing stock by promoting larger and more expensive homes and two -story dwellings instead of one -story homes. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 9 Staff Response: As noted above, Belveron East is a neighborhood in transition, with a number of second story additions constructed in recent years. The Town of Tiburon has historically recognized the need and desire to upgrade the older housing stock in the community, as many older homes, such as those found in Belveron East, do not meet the needs of contemporary households in Tiburon. The Town has not made a practice of limiting the amount or expense of additions or new houses as a means of promoting the diversity of housing stock in the community. Limitations on two -story homes have been made when such construction would result 'n view or privacy impacts or excessive mass and bulk, or when inconsistent with the overall character of the surrounding neighborhood. In contrast to the Bel Aire neighborhood, where few two -story homes exist and such additions have been opposed by many residents, the recent growth in second story additions to homes in Belveron East has been strongly supported by the neighborhood, with the exception of the subject application. PUBLIC COMMENTS During the review of the current and previous applications for 22 Mercury Avenue, the Design Review Board received numerous letters from the appellants raising objections to the project design, along with a volume of letters from other Belveron East residents further away from the site stating support for the project. Copies of letters from the appellants to the Design Review Board have been attached as Exhibits 12 -26, while copies of the individual letters of support to the Board are available for review in the application file at the Planning Division office. All letters to the Town Council that have been received regarding the subject appeal are attached. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board applied the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of this project. The Board determined that the revised two -story house design was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the changes made as a result of the revised design were substantial enough to minimize unreasonable intrusion of the second story on nearby homes. The Board evaluated the potential privacy impacts from the surrounding homes and determined that these concerns were not substantial enough to require changes to the design of the proposed house. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure; 2) Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 3) Direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board Staff report dated November 18, 2008 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 9 4. Design Review Board Staff report dated December 20, 2008 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated June 18, 2009 6. Design Review Board Staff report dated August 20, 2009 7. Minutes of the November 20, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 8. Minutes of the December 18, 2008 Design Review Board meeting 9. Minutes of the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 10. Minutes of the July 2, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 11. Minutes of the August 20, 2009 Design Review Board meeting 12. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated November 13, 2008 I' :). Letters from Albert and Shirley Anne Lettrich, dated November 17 & December 9, 2008 14. Letter from Jim and Moira O'Neal, dated December 10, 2008 15. Letter from Rod McLeod, dated December 10, 2008 16. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated December 11, 2008 17. Letter from Rod and Nancy McLeod, dated June 1, 2009 18. Letter from Albert and Shirley Anne Lettrich, dated June 6, 2009 19. Letter from Nancy McLeod, dated June 8, 2009 20. Letter from Satoko and Jeff Boris, dated June 10, 2009 21. Letter from Jim and Moira O'Neal, dated June 11, 2009 22. Letter from Rod McLeod, dated July 5, 2009 23. Letter from Anne and Al Lettrich, dated August 7, 2009 24. Letter from Rod and Nancy McLeod, dated August 11, 2009 25. Letter from Jeff and Satoko Boris, dated August 11, 2009 26. Letter from,Jim and Moira O'Neal, dated August 13, 2009 27. Letter from Mark Talamantes and Karen Carrera, dated October 1, 2009 28. Letter from Angela and Clark Jorgensen, dated October 4, 2009 29. Letter from Danny and Eithne Gallagher, dated October 5, 2009 30. Letter from Suzanna and Nick Bell, dated October 5, 2009 31. Letter from Niran and Daniel Amir, dated October 6, 2009 32. Letter from Benjamin Elliott, dated October 7, 2009 33. Letter from Katie and Rick Vasicek, dated October 7, 2009 34. Letter from Jeff and Jennifer Barnes, dated October 8, 2009 35. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Ad)ninisttation \Town Council\staff rcports\2009 \0ctober 21 Drafts \22 Mercury Avenue.appeal.report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 9