nT.,$WROSS

Agenda ltem No. 14.

Staff Report

Date: November L2,2020

To Mayor McMillan and Council Members

From: Matthew Weintraub, Planner

Subject: Shouger Residence, 34 Poplar Avenue

RecommendationTown Council approval of Resolution No. 2186 (see Attachment 1) approving a Variance andNonconformity Permit to rehabilitate the landscape around the existing single-family residence,including new arbor, outdoor kitchen, fountain feature, patios, walkways, driveway, turf, andplantings.

Property lnformationOwner:Applicant:Street Address:Assessor Parcel Number:Zoning:General Plan:

Flood Zone:

Jeff and Cassie Shougerlmprints Landscape Architecture34 Poplar Avenue073-272-05R-1-: B-7.5

ML (Medium Low Density)AE Floodway (Areas subject to inundation by the 1"-percent-annual-chance flood event)

Project DescriptionThe project would construct a new wood arbor structure and outdoor kitchen in the north sideyard; construct a new stone entry patio and concrete fountain feature in the front yard; replaceexisting crushed rock patios in front and rear yards with new permeable stone pavers; replacethe existing concrete driveway with new permeable pavers; replace existing rear lawn with newpermeable artificial turf; and install new front yard plantings and side yard privacy hedges. Thenew arbor with dimensions of 9'-3" tall, 15'-6" wide, and 7.4'-4" deep would be located aroundthe new outdoor kitchen facilities, between the existing house and garage, set back l-'-8" fromthe north side property line. ln the front yard, the new fountain feature would be 4'-6" wide and7'-4" deep and set back approximately 13' from the front property line. Project application

2727

35gt

353514

l4

20&

303

343.1

materials are included as follows: Project Plans as Attachment 2; Project Description as

Attachment 3; Neighborhood Outreach Description as Attachment 4.

The project location is shown in Figure 1.

Sudnto

,,2424 .,.

25-10".:

E'

4040

tv :j:15 tr.

q.Is

t2.lz,

lt,.':

)

a

a

41

{t,13

45il5

47

Figure 1. Vicinity map with project site highlighted. (Source: MarinMap.)

The proposed project is subject to the following permit approval pursuant to the Ross MunicipalCode (RMC):

Variance is required pursuant to RMC Section 18.48.010 to construct new structures withinminimum required yard setbacks, including the proposed new arbor, outdoor kitchenfacilities, entry patio and fountain feature.

Nonconformity Permit is required pursuant to RMC Section 18.52.030 (cl to replace,reconstruct, and reconfigure existing landings and patios which are nonconforming withrespect to minimum required yard setbacks.

Pro ect Data

2

Project ltem Code Standard Existing Proposed

Lot Area 7,500 sf min. 7,500 sf No change

Floor Area 20o/o fidx. 33.1% (2,482 sf) No change

Building Coverage 2oo/o mdx. 34.9% (2,616 sf) No change

Project ltem Code Standard Existing Proposed

Front Yard Setback 25'min. House: 22'-4" House: No change

Fountain: L3'

Side Yard Setback #1(North)

L5'min Garage: L'-8" Garage: No change

Arbor: l-'-8"

Side Yard Setback #2(South)

15'min House:10'-6" House: No change

Rear Patio: 8'

Rear Yard Setback 40'min Garage: L9' Garage: No change

Rear Patio: 4L'

Building Heisht 30'/2 stories max. <3O'/2 stories No change

Parking Spaces 2 (L covered) min 2 (1 covered) No change

lmpervious Surfaces * 3,258 sf @3.a%l 2,96L sf (39.5%)* Per Low lmpact Development for Stormwater Management, Design Review Criteria andStandards (RMC Section 18.41.100 (t)).

BackgroundThe project site is a 7,500-square-foot rectangular lot bounded by Poplar Avenue to the east,Redwood Drive to the west, commercial property to the north, and residential property to thesouth. The primary street frontage is on Poplar Avenue. Vehicular access is gained at the backof the property from Redwood Drive. The lot is practically flat with less than L%o average slope.The property is located within the AE Floodway Special Flood Hazard Area as defined by FEMA.

According to the County Assessor, the property was originally developed in 1901. The existingresidence is nonconforming with respect to the minimum required yard setbacks, maximumallowed floor area, and maximum allowed lot coverage.

According to the Town's records, the following Planning Permit entitlements were previouslygranted for the property:

Use Permit, Lt/9/92: Home occupation.Variance, L2/U/95: Construct new wall along the side property line contiguous withcommercial property, varying 5'to L0'tall, 99' long.Variance, Design Review, n/La/B: Construct new bedroom additions within minimumrequired side yard setbacks and new deck/stairs,Amendment to Variance, Design Review, a/9/75: Relocate an existing nonconforminggarage.

I

3

The Project History is included as Attachment 5

Advisory Design ReviewPursuant to Resolution No. 1990, Advisory Design Review is required for all applicants seekingdiscretionary land use permits, such as Design Review, a Demolition Permit, a NonconformityPermit, Exceptions to Attics, a Hillside Lot Permit, and/or a Variance.

The Advisory Design Review (ADR) Group reviewed the previously proposed project on July 21,2020, which included all of the currently proposed project elements, as well as a newcombination pool/spa and new 7'-tall fencing which have since been omitted from the project.At the meeting, the ADR Group received information from the applicant, allowed publiccomments, and provided recommendations regarding the merits of the project as it relates tothe purpose of Design Review and the Design Review criteria and standards per Section 18.41.100of the Ross Municipal code (RMc) and the Town of Ross Design Guidelines.

At the meeting, written and spoken comments were received from the general public. Theowners of one nearby property wrote and spoke in favor of the previously proposed project,whereas the owners of 7 nearby properties wrote and/or spoke in objection to the previouslyproposed project. Objections primarily expressed concerns about potential impacts of thepreviously proposed new pool/spa and 7'-tall fencing, which have since been omitted from theproject,

At the July 21.,2020 meeting, the ADR Group unanimously recommended that, with the exceptionof the previously proposed pool/spa, which has since been omitted from the project, all of theother elements of the project were consistent with the purpose of Design Review and the DesignReview criteria and standards per RMC Section 18.41.100. By a 1-4 vote, the ADR Group was notable to recommend that the previously proposed new pool/spa, which has since been removedfrom the project, was consistent with the purpose of Design Review and the Design Reviewcriteria and standards per RMC Section 18.41.100.

Afterthe Ju|y21.,2020 meeting, the applicant prepared and submitted a revised project designthat shifted the location of the previously proposed new pool/spa to the north, which wasscheduled for review at the August L8,2O2O ADR Group Meeting. Prior to the August 18,2O2Omeeting, the owners of 7 nearby properties wrote in objection to the previously proposedproject, expressing concerns about potential impacts of the previously proposed new pool/spaand 7'-tall fencing, which have since been omitted from the project. ln consideration of thepublic comments and the ADR Group Members' recommendations, the applicant withdrew thepreviously proposed project design scheduled to be reviewed at the August 18,2O2O ADR GroupMeeting, and the hearing was cancelled.

ln further consideration of the public comments and the ADR Group Members'recommendations, the applicant prepared and submitted a revised project design that entirelyomitted the previously proposed new pool/spa and 7'-tall fencing, and which contained all of theother previously proposed project elements which were unanimously supported by the ADRGroup. Planning staff reviewed the final revised project design and recommends that it is

consistent with the ADR Group's recommendation.

4

TheJuly 2I,2O2O ADR Group Meeting Minutes (draft) are included asAttachment 6. Writtenpublic comments received prior to finalization of this report are included as Attachment 7.

Key lssues

PrivocyPursuant to RMC 18.41.L00 (m), outdoor areas should be sited to minimize noise to protect theprivacy and quietude of surrounding properties, and landscaping should be provided to protectprivacy between properties. The new arbor structure and outdoor kitchen area would be locatedas far away from the adjacent residential property to the south, and as close to the adjacentcommercial property to the north, as possible. The project would add new privacy hedges alongthe front and south side property lines to provide screening. For these reasons, staffrecommends that the project would not result in privacy impacts.

Stormwoter MonagementPursuant to RMC 18.41.100 (t), development should manage stormwater runoff to maintainnatural drainage patterns and infiltrate runoff to the maximum extent practical given the site'ssoil characteristics, slope, and other relevant factors. The project would maximize permeabilityand reduce the existing total impervious surface coverage on the property. The post-development stormwater runoff rates from the site should be no greater than pre-project rates.The project would remove existing imperyious surfaces and it would use permeable materials fornew driveways, parking areas, patios and paths. The project includes appropriate subsurfaceconditions and plan for future maintenance to maintain the infiltration performance. For thesereasons, staff recommends that the project is consistent with Low lmpact Development forStormwater Management.

Public CommentNo public comments were received with respect to the currently proposed project, which omitsthe previously proposed combination pool/spa and new 7'-tall fencing, prior to finalization of thisreport. All public comments received prior to finalization of this report pertained to thepreviously proposed project and to the new combination pool/spa and new 7'-tall fencing, whichhave since been omitted from the project.

Public Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site at least L0 dayspriorto the meeting date. Written public comments received priorto finalization of this reportare included as Attachment 7.

Fiscal, Resource and Timeline lmpactslf approved, the project would be subject to one-time fees for a building permit and associatedimpact fees, which are based on the reasonable expected cost of providing the associatedservices and facilities related to the development. The improved project site may be reassessedat a higher value by the Marin County Assessor, leading to an increase in the Town's property taxrevenues. Lastly, there would be no net funding impacts associated with the project.

5

Alternative actions7. Continue the item to gather further information, conduct further analysis, or revise the

project; or2. Make findings to deny the application.

Environmental ReviewThe project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmentaldocuments under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA GuidelinesSection 15301 (Existing Facilities), because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance,permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities,mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of usebeyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.

Attachments1. Resolution No. 2L862. Project Plans

3. Project Description4. Neighborhood Outreach Description5. Project History6. ADR Group Meeting Minutes, July 2L,2O2O7. Public Comments

6

ATTACHMENT L

TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2L86A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING A VARIANCE AND

NONCONFORMITY PERMIT TO REHABILITATE THE LANDSCAPE AROUND THE

EXISTING SINGLE.FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING NEW ARBOR, OUTDOORKITCHEN, FOUNTAIN FEATURE, PATIOS, WALKWAYS, DRIVEWAY, TURF, AND

PLANTINGS AT34 POPLAR AVENUE, APN 073.272.05

WHEREAS, property owners Jeff and'Cassie Shouger have submitted an application requestingapproval of a Variance and Nonconformity Permit to construct a new wood arbor structure andoutdoor kitchen in the north side yard; construct a new stone entry patio and concrete fountainfeature in the front yard; replace existing crushed rock patios in front and rear yards with newpermeable stone pavers; replace the existing concrete driveway with new permeable pavers;replace existing rear lawn with new permeable artificialturf; and install new front yard plantingsand side yard privacy hedges (herein referred to as "the project") at 34 Poplar Avenue, APN 073-272-05.

WHEREAS, the project was determined to be categorically exempt from the requirement for thepreparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because it consists of the operation,repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public orprivate structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involvingnegligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency'sdetermination; and

WHEREAS, on November L2, 2O2O, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing toconsider the project; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff reports,correspondence, and other information contained in the project file, and has received publiccomment; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED the Town Council of the Town of Ross hereby incorporatesthe recitals above; makes the findings set forth in Exhibit "A", and approves a Variance andNonconformity Permit to allow the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as

Exhibit "B".

The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regularmeeting held on the 12th day of November 2020, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Julie McMillan, Mayor

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

2

EXHIBIT "A"FINDINGS

34 POPLAR AVENUE

APN 073-272-05

A. Findings

l. In accordance with Ross Municipal Code (RMCI Section 18.48.010 (c), Variance is approvedbased on the following mandatory findings:

aI That there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or usereferred to in the application.

The special circumstances and conditions applicable to the land include the relatively smalllot size; the narrow lot shape; the nonconforming coverage of the existing single-familyresidence and garage on the property which limits the open area for new development; andthe adjacent commercial property to the north, which does not require' the sameconsiderations as a residential property. Due to these conditions, the strict application of theminimum required setbacks could deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by otherproperties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications, such as the ability tomaintain an open rear yard while adding an outdoor dining area in a nonobtrusive area, andto improve the front yard area with new structures for access and aesthetics.

b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofsubstantial property rights.

Granting of the application is necessary to allow for substantial new landscape improvementsto occur around the existing single-family residence which has nonconforming setbacks andcoverage, while allowing for retention of a large cohesive open area in the rear yardunobstructed by buildings or structures, which are features that are commonly enjoyed byowners of residential properties in Ross. Granting of the application is also necessary for thepreservation and enjoyment of property rights of neighboring owners, by allowing for thenew arbor structure and outdoor kitchen area to be located as far away as possible from theadjacent residential property to the south, and as close as possible to the adjacentcommercial property to the north.

c) That the granting of the application will not materially affect adversely the health orsafety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of theapplicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious toproperty or improvements in the neighborhood.

Granting of the application would benefit health and safety by aesthetically improving thefront yard appearance; and by allowing for the new arbor structure and outdoor kitchen areato be located as far away as possible from the adjacent residential property to the south, andas close as possible to the adjacent commercial property to the north. The project would

3

include appropriate plantings to soften or screen the appearance of the property as seenfrom off-site locations.

ll. In accordance with Ross Municipal Code (RMC) Section 18.52.030 (c), NonconformityPermit is approved based on the following mandatory findings:

a) The nonconforming structure was in existence at the time the ordinance that nowprohibits the structure was passed. The structure must have been lawful whenconstructed. The property owner has the burden to prove by substantial evidence thenonconforming and legal status of the structure.

The existing nonconforming residence was originally constructed in approximately 1901 perthe County Assessor.

bl The town council can make the findings required to approve any required demolitionpermit for the structure: The demolition will not remove from the neighborhood ortown, nor adversely affect, a building of historical, architectural, cultural or aestheticvalue. The demolition will not adversely affect nor diminish the character or qualitiesof the site, the neighborhood or the community.

A demolition permit is not required pursuant to per RMC Chapter 18.50

c) The project substantially conforms to relevant design review criteria and standards inSection 18.41.100, even if design review is not required.

As described in the Design Review findings in Section lll below, the project is consistent withthe Design Review criteria and standards per RMC Section 18.41.L00.

d) Total floor area does not exceed the greater of: a) the total floor area of the existingconforming andlor legal nonconforming structure(s); or bl the maximum floor areapermitted for the lot under current zoning regulations. The town shall apply thedefinition of floor area in effect at the time of the application for a nonconformitypermit.

The project will not result in any change to the existing floor area

el Granting the permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ormaterially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Granting of the application would allow for existing nonconforming crushed rock patios in thefront and rear yards to be replaced and reconfigured with new permeable stone pavers,which would benefit the public health, safety and welfare by improving aesthetics andreducing impervious surface coverage.

4

f) The project will comply with the Flood Damage Prevention regulations in Chapter 15.36.

The project complies with the Flood Damage Prevention regulations in RMC Chapter 15.36.

gl The fire chief has confirmed that the site has adequate access and water supply forfirefighting purposes, or that the project includes alternate measures approved by thefire chief.

The project would not result in any change to the existing access and water supply forfirefighting purposes.

h) The applicant has agreed in writing to the indemnification provision in Section18.40.180.

Conditions of Approval require indemnification pursuant to RMC Section 18.40.180

i) The site has adequate parking. For purposes of this section, adequate parking shallmean that the site complies with at least the minimum number of parking spacesrequired for the zoning district (covered or not covered). lf the site does not complywith the covered parking requirement, the Town Council may require covered parkingto be provided. The Town Council may consider the size of the residence and numberof bedrooms and may require additional parking up to the following:

Total site floor area (excluding covered parkingf1,300 square feet to 3,300 square feetOver 3,300 square feet

Required off street parking3 spaces

4 spaces

The project complies with the minimum required off-street parking capacity.

lll. Pursuant to Resolution No. 1990, Advisory Design Review is required for all applicantsseeking discretionary land use permits, such as Design Review, a Demolition Permit, aNonconformity Permit, Exceptions to Attics, a Hillside Lot Permit, andlor a Variance. lnaccordance with Ross Municipal Code (RMC) Section L8.4L.O7O, the project meets therequirements of Design Review based on the following special conditions and findings:

al The project is consistent with the purpose of the Design Review chapter as outlined inRoss Municipal Code Section 18.41.010.

As recommended by the Advisory Design Review (ADR) Group, the project is consistent withthe purpose of the Design Review chapter as outlined in Ross Municipal Code SectionL8.4L.010. lt provides excellence of design consistent with the scale and quality of existingdevelopment; preserves and enhances the historical "small town," low-density character andidentity that is unique to the Town of Ross; preserve lands which are unique environmentalresources; enhances the area in which the project is located; and promotes and implements

5

the design goals, policies and criteria of the Ross general plan

b) The project is in substantial compliance with the design criteria of Ross Municipal CodeSection 18.41.100.

As recommended by the Advisory Design Review (ADR) Group, the project is in substantialcompliance with the design criteria of Ross Municipal Code Section 18.41.100. The projectwould: avoid monumental or excessively large structures that would be out of character withtheir setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood; use materials and colors thatminimize visual impacts, blend with the vegetative cover, and are compatible with structuresin the neighborhood, with wood and stone preferred; shield and direct downward exteriorlighting to avoid glare, hazard or annoyance to adjacent property owners or passersby;

integrate landscaping into the architectural scheme to accent and enhance the appearanceof the development, include appropriate plantings to soften or screen the appearance ofstructures as seen from off-site locations; site outdoor areas to minimize noise to protect theprivacy and quietude of surrounding properties; provide landscaping to protect privacybetween properties; maximize permeability and reduce the existing total impervious surfacecoverage on the property, and use permeable materials for driveways, parking areas, patiosand paths, such that the post-development stormwater runoff rates from the site should beno greater than pre-project rates.

c) The project is consistent with the Ross General Plan and zoning ordinance.

The project is consistent with the allowed uses and general development standardsassociated with the Medium Low Density land use designation of the General Plan and theSingle Family Residence zoning regulations, therefore the project is found to be consistentwith the Ross General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

6

EXHIBIT'B'CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

34 POPLAR AVENUE

APN 073-272-05

1. This approval authorizes a Variance and Nonconformity Permit to rehabilitate the landscapearound the existing single-family residence, including new arbor, outdoor kitchen, fountainfeature, patios, walkways, driveway, turf, and plantings (herein referred to as "the project")at 34 Poplar Avenue, APN 073-272-05.

2. The building permit shall substantially conform to the plans entitled, "SHOUGER RESIDENCE,

34 POPLAR AVENUE, ROSS, CA." revised tO/L6/20, and reviewed and approved by the TownCouncil on Novemb er L2, 2020.

3. Except as otherwise provided in these conditions, the project shall comply with the planssubmitted for Town Council approval. Plans submitted for the building permit shall reflectany modifications required by the Town Council and these conditions.

4. No changes from the approved plans, before or after project final, including changes to thematerials and material colors, shall be permitted without prior Town approval. Red-linedplans showing any proposed changes shall be submitted to the Town for review and approvalprior to any change. The applicant is advised that changes made to the design duringconstruction may delay the completion of the project and will not extend the permittedconstruction period.

5. The project shall comply with the Fire Code and all requirement of the Ross Valley FireDepartment (RVFD).

6. The Town staff reserves the right to require additional landscape screening for up to three(3) years from project final to ensure adequate screening for the properties that are directlycontiguous to the project site. The Town staff will only require additional landscape screeningif the contiguous neighbor can demonstrate through pre-project existing condition picturesthat their privacy is being negatively impacted as a result of the project.

7. BEFORE FINAL INSPECTION, the applicant shall call for a Planning staff inspection of approvedlandscaping, building materials and colors, lighting and compliance with conditions of projectapproval at least five business days before the anticipated completion of the project. Failureto pass inspection will result in withholding of the Final lnspection approval and impositionof hourly fees for subsequent re-inspections.

8. A Tree Permit shall not be issued until the project grading or building permit is issued

9. The project shall comply with the following conditions of the Town of Ross BuildingDepartment and Public Works Department:

7

c

a. Any person engaging in business within the Town of Ross must first obtain a businesslicense from the Town and pay the business license fee. Applicant shall provide the namesof the owner, architects, engineers and any other people providing project services withinthe Town, including names, addresses, e-mail, and phone numbers. All such people shallfile for a business license. A final list shall be submitted to the Town prior to project final.

b. A registered Architect or Engineer's stamp and signature must be placed on all plan pages.

The building department may require the applicant to submit a deposit prior to buildingpermit issuance to cover the anticipated cost for any Town consultants, such as the townhydrologist, review of the project. Any additional costs incurred by the Town, includingcosts to inspect or review the project, shall be paid as incurred and prior to project final.

d. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the building permit application forreview by the building official/director of public works. The Plan shall include signedstatement by the soils engineer that erosion control is in accordance with Marin CountyStormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPP) standards. The erosion controlplan shall demonstrate protection of disturbed soil from rain and surface runoff anddemonstrate sediment controls as a "back-up" system (i.e., temporary seeding andmulching or straw matting).

e. No grading shall be permitted during the rainy season between October 15 and April 15

unless permitted in writing by the Building Official/Director of Public Works. Grading is

considered to be any movement of earthen materials necessary for the completion of theproject. This includes, but is not limited to cutting, filling, excavation for foundations, andthe drilling of pier holes. lt does not include the boring or test excavations necessary fora soils engineering investigation. All temporary and permanent erosion control measuresshall be in place prior to October 1.

f. The drainage design shall comply with the Town's stormwater ordinance (Ross MunicipalCode Chapter 15.54). A drainage plan and hydrologic/hydraulic analysis shall besubmitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the buildingofficial/public works director.

g. An encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public Works prior to anywork within a public right-of-way.

h. The plans submitted for a building permit shall include a detailed construction and trafficmanagement plan for review and approval of the building official, in consultation with thetown planner and police chief. The plan shall include as a minimum: tree protection,management of worker vehicle parking, location of portable toilets, areas for materialstorage, traffic control, method of hauling and haul routes, size of vehicles, and washoutareas. The plan shall demonstrate that on-street parking associated with construction

workers and deliveries are prohibited and that all project deliveries shalloccur duringtheallowable working hours as identified in the below condition 10n.

The applicant shall submit a schedule that outlines the scheduling of the site developmentto the building official. The schedule should clearly show completion of all site gradingactivities prior to the winter storm season and include implementation of an erosioncontrol plan. The construction schedule shall detail how the project will be completedwithin the construction completion date provided for in the construction completionchapter of the Ross Municipal Code (Chapter 15.50).

A preconstruction meeting with the property owner, project contractor, project architect,project arborist, representatives of the Town Planning, Building/Public Works and Ross

Valley Fire Department and the Town building inspector is required prior to issuance ofthe building permit to review conditions of approval for the project and the constructionmanagement plan.

k. A copy of the building permit shall be posted at the site and emergency contactinformation shall be up to date at alltimes.

l. The Building Official and other Town staff shall have the right to enter the property at alltimes during construction to review or inspect construction, progress, compliance withthe approved plans and applicable codes.

m. lnspections shall not be provided unless the Town-approved building permit plans areavailable on site.

n. Working Hours are limited to Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction is notpermitted at any time on Saturday and Sunday or the following holidays: New Year's Day,

Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, lndependence Day, Labor Day,

Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. lf the holiday falls on a Sunday, thefollowing Monday shall be considered the holiday. lf the holiday falls on a Saturday, theFriday immediately preceding shall be considered the holiday. Exceptions: 1.) Work donesolely in the interior of a building or structure which does not create any noise which is

audible from the exterior; or 2.) Work actually physically performed solely by the ownerof the property, on Saturday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and not atany time on Sundays or the holidays listed above, (RMC Sec. 9.20.035 and 9.20.060).

o. Failure to comply in any respect with the conditions or approved plans constitutesgrounds for Town staff to immediately stop work related to the noncompliance until thematter is resolved (Ross Municipal Code Section 18.39.100). The violations may besubject to additional penalties as provided in the Ross Municipal Code and State law. lf a

stop work order is issued, the Town may retain an independent site monitor at theexpense of the property owner prior to allowing any further grading and/or constructionactivities at the site.

9

r

s

u

V

p. Materials shall not be stored in the public right-of-way. The project owners andcontractors shall be responsible for maintaining all roadways and rights-of-way free oftheir construction-related debris. All construction debris, including dirt and mud, shall becleaned and cleared immediately. All loads carried to and from the site shall be securelycovered, and the public right-of-way must be kept free of dirt and debris at all times. Dustcontrol using reclaimed water shall be required as necessary on the site or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at site.Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.

q. Applicants shall comply with all requirements of all utilities including, the Marin MunicipalWater District, Ross Valley Sanitary District, and PG&E prior to project final. Lettersconfirming compliance shall be submitted to the building department prior to projectfinal.

All electric, communication and television service laterals shall be placed undergroundunless otherwise approved by the director of public works pursuant to Ross MunicipalCod e Sectio n 15.25.L20.

The project shall comply with building permit submittal requirements as determined bythe Building Department and identify such in the plans submitted for building permit.

t. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to repair any road damagecaused by construction. Applicant is advised that, absent a clear video evidence to thecontrary, road damage must be repaired to the satisfaction of the Town prior to projectfinal. Damage assessment shall be atthe sole discretion of theTown, and neighborhoodinput will be considered in making that assessment.

Final inspection and written approval of the applicable work by Town Building, Planningand Fire Department staff shall mark the date of construction completion.

The Public Works Department may require submittal of a grading security in the form ofa Certificate of Deposit (CD) or cash to cover grading, drainage, and erosion control.Contact the Department of Public Works for details.

w. BEFORE FINAL INSPECTION, the Soils Engineer shall provide a letter to the Department ofPublic Works certifying that all grading and drainage has been constructed according toplans filed with the grading permit and his/her recommendations. Any changes in theapproved grading and drainage plans shall be certified by the Soils Engineer and approvedby the Department of Public Works. No modifications to the approved plans shall bemade without approval of the Soils Engineer and the Department of Public Works.

The existing vegetation shall not be disturbed until landscaping is installed or erosioncontrol measures, such as straw matting, hydroseeding, etc., are implemented.

10

Allconstruction materials, debris and equipment shall be stored on site. lf that is notphysically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Departmentof Public Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris, debris boxes orunlicensed equipment in the right-of-way.

The applicant shall provide a hard copy and a CD of an as-built set of drawings, and a

certification from all the design professionals to the building department certifyingthat all construction was in accordance with the as-built plans and his/herrecommendations.

10. The applicants and/or owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless alongwith the Town Council and Town boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, andconsultants from any claim, action, or proceeding ("action") against the Town, its boards,commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside,declare void, or annulthe approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damagesbased upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptlynotify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, maytender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defendthe action with its attorneys with all attorney fees and litigation costs incurred by the Townin either case paid for by the applicant and/or owners,

11

ATTACHMENT 2

Pf,OIEqLDS9CB"IPTION

m$oPE oFmE moH s 10,xslu @mM @.TmR ffi lH.so. ew$sc Fre c0 RFue av*dD & Pss).lw rrcRruc h$x), ME PilR DmaaY@ RlMccoNcm) NwPI-NNCS.N$OS.

rrcEltlic-luuEs

PRO.IFCT NATA

tMpaxMIAar.t s!RtacEs:S DNA@ ImOWN BOTSE*mNEfi(gION OF@M ]l@MN OFffi SSroGDNrcESYsBN J\INY.

MWSrcre il@g@G^MEN BOSp./W,ilSTNC V@D D&K.ROMMCgAMffiA&RffiFDrcffJM-

NSnd sYs@rsrc MN.ffi @ffi @s6M6Sdt

3. nN M*&CNl*DE$dREVW$UCfrONrurcS6o[tlusO&WG S NOTMNSMY MrImND IS MTM E U$' rcR PESITNlusnoNM/oRcsmffiN,

aotNltilctroll.NolEsruNu.ffiNco?NAsaEZA[WUIAS&COreEWffi ESH.COLORMB€'WilVF'Oi

s.Curua&N&iAU(roSDaEAXngOEA$OVN,4[!w'srercIlM-

GRADING CALCULATIONS:

NESIGN REVIEW NOTRSGEIIEIALN(IIISr.rENDSffi ruAASft MW&6ROVD6SyrEOMR,Sft

ffiEWS^MAPRSESrcNM-YSWIANffi DWPNCESSH&BE BROUCMMTEf MN Sre NlMEAIffi IMffiY

2.ALWMSHU@mDr mreN$NS *ffiWNS.SDlJlwEV@NSffiN$ASSSOCS)OFTE @l'mOFMSADrercW

LIGIIIING-I.EGEISDsruol @ B(:IWON O

+ B'$RNRE

/-n *LLTM]W mSN lOmSdaQ 3{}-r'DI$rx) nh r^trsn a

VRH S/MAU}'A6M

r1 l

:; + :'iDOWN LICH'I'S G] ARBOR

NEIGIIBORIIOOD MAP

SHEET INDEXL1 L,4.NDSCAPE DEMOLITION PLAN

(EXISTING CONDITIONS)L2 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PL.ANL3 LANDSCAPE DETAILSL4 EXISTING CONDITIONSPHOTOSI,5 STAKING PLANL6 IMAGES & MATERIALSL7 DRAINAGE PLAN

.2r oFmm MrNrsPlwmDeM. &l,ffi6MMEm86Mlj@IJMCSPWODS,

PI,ANtrNG-NOIDSI.ULffiG lsTMRELS EBESOVSNIlfuCSA SO*N2.NO Pnmmc M trUE nol)@ Um *OE63.AEMCISbONNVbWDMR@WATNMNCffiomNMsN@.

arouffi MNsaosaDhGMADft 6@Mam

3,SUCmGffSI@ff &Oreffi,ISAIGA3]ONIII}IES

PRFT IMTNARVPI ANT I.IST {SEOUGNR RESINFNCF)

.i'

b

.i

tl

DOWN LICHTS @ BBQ

t--?'t

BUILDINC & PLANNINC CODEaLLCO\Srt!Ctor.ECAS

APPIICABI,tr BTJILDING CODT]S:20I9Cdildnb BuildiDe Cde (CBC)20t9 CdiforDb eldd Code (CIC)2019 Cdlfomh Nlebdcd Cde{CMC:019 Cldifod Pludbtng od.(ctc)20l9Crlifornu N.€ (:de(Crq:0l9GEr Bdldry Sled.ds:019CdiforrbEn rp Code2Ol9 Crlifdnh.sidcrtial Code (CRCI

1b BU COlfLf,l E. \ON.(rNPt.f,\IT H,ti$tN',S ilD CoSrnO\S\rs u c.rst ,\ N,tJ E!: ovrRr.iDf,rD. on so\s tt-F:ytss I^)

r r s $\r Rr lxsRrf Rr:srlt.rD or rilflsua\trtrED PIINS. Pt,g.\SU AA r\iutr 10S{:6t}Lr\iT ELF-\D|TSrtD!1|xDrrrr\sr0f

^DDusrD rt rhr r!\ rE$*trsuur(.f

10flELD rurvlErq/$DcoltPlt^l(u wrrs,[r,drLrcilrt coDEsa\rr LAlrs wrLL D[ f,f,Qfrs:D.-

Shouger Residence34 Poplar Avenue Rw, CA.DatESl22l2O2OAP#: W3-/12-05

COVERSHEET

Go*r*

,9

\

/(*}srcrwoBun

lro

? 9#=

)

WIrL,sB&sri mc@ wffi cxFNGffioN ruTuos.&rLs&rcxmodncVICTNITY MAP

REVISED: l0 I 16 I zlnREVISEDT ttl3/2020REVISED: ttl5l2O2O

6(,Ooov ( O oO

1a -a" 5bE 5EIAACK

(EJCONC, LA|DTNO

tE) DEC(

(E)WOOO 3ft?6

G) 9BA

EXISTIN6 RESIDENCE

{NO CHANGEg)

TE) GARAGE

."o o"o o:

q

"t

^loo

=ol

T*E9

(52s$)(a15+)

Gt tq!9E

(E) CONC waLL

C) .(E) IR€E

(E] OFFICE BUILDINGIE) 9ECK

(5)A-1O"dPRE96 (FTAMMAgTE)

(jrq)

(E)FENCE

2

L<

Gl gHlq (E) HOUsE

@

Shouger Residence34 PqlarAvdue RG, CA-I}aeS I 22 I 2O2O SeleJl6"= tL0"APt: m?t-OST.ANDSCAPN NF'.MOI ]TTON PT,AN

f I'.xrsTrNG coNDrTroNsJsI{nFT r.r

^' RaVlSllD: l0/ l9/202{l

l&:rm

s',-Otg.Deffi .i

15 -A-

lE)*ooD aft?9

E!!91!.t!9...F.E 9LD Erqq(NO CHAN6E9)

(E)DECK

{6Y OWNER)

G) bbo

ll"FI

iE) dARAGE

(N0 cHAN6E9)

i

(E) CONC.WALL

(E) G^fE

(E)FENCE

walL(3)

(PERMEAAIE)

e68o BUILDING (E) FENCE

5TRlcruru .." A""'vruMOVE CYPREgg(?)

URN W/SCREEN 9HR!9

IREE

ti

(E) O^ra

ft

a

@

(E)9UMP

Shouger Residence34 Poplar AYmft RN, CA.Daa S I 22 / 2020 Scalc 3i/16" = l'-0"Aw.Wn.-MI.ANDSCAPT'. CONCFPT PI,ANSHFFT r.2

Gnn

(E)reE

(E) WOOD FENCE

REVISIID; l0/ 16l2020R-0V|SED: ll / 3 / 2020

REVISFID: ll/5/?020

-

lE) 50!NDwaLL

$l.r

t:

.i

tI

(E) HOUsE

(E) CAUGE

ELEYATION @ AROOR / CUSTAM tsFQl 9OUNDWALL

/;\ PERMEABLE PAVEB DRIVEWAY

\7

PERMEABLE ARTIFICIAL TURF

6N12 eeAM

i

Shouger Residence34 PopluAv€nue R6s, CA,Dat*; 5 / 22/ 2O2O Scale:1,2"=1r0"Ap#:M3-27Lf)S

I,ANDSCAPN DF'TATLSSHFFTT'3 REvrsnD: to / 16 t zrz,

REVISEDT rtl3l2o2oREVISED: tllsl2O2O

G*r*

L.

ffi

PERMEABLE STONE PAVING

2.9

_:9t:t.!'l{Rl:oNl NUoIJ9CALE:1h" = 1'-O"

l_f [_:l;:l;:ltI

i

ELEVATION @ AP-6OF./ CU9TOM ts88lgOUNDWALL

Shouger Residence34 Poplirr Avenue R6, CA.DaE S I 22 I 2020 Scsle: 3116" = lL0"APr! mr7t.osEXISTING CONDI'I'IONS PHOTOSSHEET I,4

G*,,

+

:d

JddIdd

!

I

tdE

lEl RESIDENCEI

3

T ]'EG-T lL--.'Jts""++ggL l

___l

p

IE}GARAGE

PEqMEABIEARNEruNF

Shouger Residence34PopltrAymue Rs,CA.Dare: 5 / 22 / 2020 Sele:3/ld'= lr0"ap#, tl3-27a-{r5

STAKING PLAN R-EVISED: to t ts t2o2o

SHEET L5

VliF!

=Ets:

€

@

lulozLrlooUJttUJofoIU,

..-.1.,*

I

liI

I

l

ltl

lttl

-a-'-'*ii:iiliTi::TT-Iostrt;T@-- | sHouc_^' | 316'=1

G*,,er@.w14.asr

UNDSCSTAKING

I

Shouger Residence34 Poplar Avetrw Rs, CA.

Date:05/ 29 I 2020IMAGES -AND M.{'I'S'RIA'.S I6

RSVISED: lo1 16l2O?{}

G*0,,

{E) dArE

IPERMEA9LE)

910NE rllrO (PERMEA0LE)

15 -O gtDE 5elgACK

{E) FENCE

ROOF gTRUCTUru A

ao€

(E) FENCE

(E)CONC WALL

(E)

lREE| ,,;\rt \til'l

"i

o

iE)

(E)WOOD FENCE

;l1

:i

{E)SCREEN

":-\F *- \

l',rr

@rl

All drainage to remain - no changes proposed

Shouger ResidenceSPoplarAYoue R6,CA.Dr@t lO / 16 / 20211 Sc€le. 3/16" = r'-0"aP#| M!t1'-O5TIRAINAGF' PI AN

SHRRT I 7

G-urnr* Revised: ro / 27 / 2o2o

ii;ffi:l:::l'^*

(E)WOOA 3ft?5

EXr9TN6 RE9TDENCE

(NO CHAN6Es)

{E) 0ECK

lslouaE 6ztow)

(9Y oWNER)

G) AOAI

I

.(E) A^R^6a

{NO CHAN6E9)

ATTACHMENT 3

pRoIrcT nF'scRrPTroN

T}IE SCOPE OFTHIS PROJECT IS TO INSTALLA NEW SWIMMING FOOL. CUSTOM OUTDOORKITCHEN, BBQ. REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FENCTNG, PERMEABLE STONE PANOS fTOREPLACE PAVER AND DG PA'TIOS), TI.JRF TTO REPLACE LAWN) " PERMEABLE PAVERDRTVEWAY (TO REPLACE CONCRETE} AND NEW PI.ANRNCS.AS SHOWN.

NO DRATNAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED WITH THE EXCEFTION OF REPAIR IRELOCATION OF THE E)OSTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS i.{ECESSARY.

A TOTAL OF 70 CI,'BIC YARDS OF SOIL IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FOR THE SWIMMINGPOOL EXCAVATION. NO OTHER SlcMFlCAt\tT ORADTNC lS PROPOSED.

POOL EQUIPMEI.IT ENCLOSURE IS TO BE LOCATED IN THE CRAWL SPACE. AS SHOWN

NO CHANCES TO THE HOUSE OR GARACE ARE PROPOSED. ALSO. EXISTINC WOOD DECK.FRONT PORCH AND STEPS ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN.

IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO REMAIN. WTTH REPAJRS MADE AS NECESSARY

Vrt':,r11tt 4lll1.l,

Mandatory Findings for Variance Applicationsln order for a variance to be granted, the following mondatory findings must be made

Special CircumstancesThat because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography,location, and surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property ofprivileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Describethe special circumstances that prevent conformance to pertinent zoning regulations.

ln review with Ross Planning, we ascertained that many neighbors have

pools, arbors and BBQs within setbacks. These would not be considered

special circumstances by our understanding

Substantia I Property RightsThat the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rightsDescribe why the project is needed to enjoy substantial property rights.

Simply, this project is for a family who would like to be able to enjoy the

outdoor beauty of their space

6For mcre infornration visit us online at www.townofross.org

vrtrsron 4ib/ tb

Public WelfareThat the granting of a variance will not be detrimentalto the public welfare or injurious to otherproperty in the neighborhood in which said property is situated, Descibe why the variance will not beharmfulto or incompatible with other nearby properties.

We feel that there would be no impact on public welfare. These improvements cannot

be seen from the street and are screened from neighbors. Neighbor to the north is an

office complex with a sound wall between the properties

7For more information visit us online at www.townofross.org

From:To:Subject:Date:Attachmentsi

Matthew WeintraubPatrick StreeterFW: Shouger Residence

Tuesday, August 18,2020 3:15:00 PM

Imprints looo dark smaller.onq

From: Brad Eigsti <brad @ im pri ntsgardens.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 18,2020 3:21 PM

To: Matth ew Wei ntra u b <Mweintrau b @townofross.org>Cc: Jeff shouger <jeff.shouger@gmail.com>

Subject: Shouger Residence

Hi,

ln light of the neighbor outrage, we are opting to cancel our ADR tonight.

We are planning to proceed with Planning + Building Permit submittal for the BBQ, Arbor and other improvements

Could you please confirm the exact requirements moving fonivard on the projectwith the removal of the pool ?

Thanks

Brad Eigsti

IMPRINTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

202 Rosemont AveMillValley, CA94941415.380.0755www. imprintsgardens.com

tEl

ATTACHMENT 4

NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACHHow you informed neighbors of your project, and how have they responded? Were there any issues,and how were those issues resolved?

Date of Outreach and How:

lnitial: June 2, 2020 through a verbal conversation

Neighbor and Address: Michael and Lisa Gorham L8 Redwood Drive Ross ca 94957How I informed them of the project: I talk to them multiple times in person and showed them picturesofthe project.

Comments: They are very supportive of the improvements we want to make to our backyardincluding the addition of a pool.

Concerns: NoneMediations: None

Neighbor and Address: Barbara Gately L9 Redwood Drive, Ross, CA94957How I informed her of the project: I talk to her in person, exchange text messages and emailed her.Comments: She was initially supportive of the pool, but then become concerned about it.Concerns: She has some concerns on the potential noise the pool would create and if it would affect thevalue of her property.Mediations:

Neighbor and Address: Margaret Francis 20 Redwood Drive, Ross, CA94gS7How I informed her of the project: I talk to her in person, and emailed her.Comments: No concernsConcerns: No concernsMediations: No concerns

Neighbor and Address: Ann Morrisry 36 Poplar Avenue, Ross, CA 94957How I informed her of the project: emailed her.Comments: No comments yet.Concerns: None as of 6/12/20Mediations: None

ATTACHMENT 5

Novenber 9, L995

L7.

1a

-10-

,t\f\v

ur *

Thj.s was seconded by Councilwonan Brown.

Mayor Goodman call-ed for a vote and the motion passed withfour affirmative votes. Councilrnember Reid voted against.

Mayor Goodman said if the neighbors have a problen, theyshould take photographs or contact one of theCouncilmernbers .

AP No. 72-061-O2.Mr. Ross referred to his attorney,s fetter addressed to theTown Council. Town Planner Broad said that the letter wasreceived by fax today and requested two iterns: one is thatthe Resolution fails to acknowLedge the unsuccessful (3-2vote) motion for approval of the retaining wa1l only, afterMr. Ross withdrew his request for the pool during thehearing. The other request was to delete the reference toMr. Ross' subrnission of a building perrnit application for aretaining watl design because this was done after thehearing. Mr, Broad said that the Resolutj-on is not intendedto be a full detail of the events of that meetingr. He saidthe minutes would reflect rnore detail whereas a resolutionis intended to have enough information to characterize theevents of the rneeting. After talking to the Town Attorney,it was determined that they should accede to Attorney cold,srequest concerning the buildinq permit and delete the lastsentence on Page Two.

Mr. Ross fel-t the vote was a very pertinent point and itwould be j-rnportant information in the future. He referredto the staff's suggestion that the landscaping proposedcould not reflect conceaLment of the retaining wa1l. Mr.Ross said that there was no supporting docurnentation forthis. He asked that the Council review the infonnationpresented for adoption to make sure it is accuratelyexpressj.ng his feelings as well as the context of therneeting, prior to the adoption of the resolution.

Councilmernber Reid moved approval with the deletj-on of thereference to the perrnit on Paqe Two, as recomrnended bystaff. This was seconded by Council:nember Barry and passedunanimously.

U8E PERI.TIT.a. ifean Burnett and Kathleen Truax (tenants), Daniel andl

Susan Ohlson, James and Christine Howey (owners), 23Ross Common, AP 73-273-LO, Local Conmercial District.Counseling, art andl play therapy/vrorkshops in 325square feet of office space, Tero enployees with sixclients anticipated each day. tthe office will be openllonday through Friday 7:00 a.E. to 9 p.n., withoccasional Saturday use.Councilrnernber Scott rnoved approval with the findings inthe staff report and the condition that a businesslicense shal1 be obtained frorn the Town of Ross priorto commencement of use. This was seconded byCouncihnember Reid and passed unanimously.

b. Zach ltcReynolds, 3a poplar Avenue, Ap 7g-272-05, R-l!B-7.5 (SingLe Fanily Residence, ?r5OO square footnininun). A use perrnit for a management consulting andcomputer nodeling hone occupation, typically for citiesor water agencies in california. The home occupationconsists of a sole employee (the horneowner) andtypically involves { to I hours of lrork per week athone, ryith no custoner or client visits.

Xc

t \)ID,*

\,\

USE PERMITNO. 207

November 9, 1995 - t1-

Councilmember Barry moved approval with the findings inthe staff report and the following conditions:

a. A business license shall be obtained from the Townof Ross prior to commencement of use.

b. This use sha1l adhere to the ten required criteriafor hone occupations. Failure to conply shall begrounds for Council use pernit revocation ormodification as per Municipal Code Section18.44. O50.

This was seconded by Councilmernber Reid. There srere nocomnents fron the audience. The motion passedunanimously.

COUNCILMEIITBER SCOTT STEPPED DOWN FROI{ TTTE COUNCIL CEA}{BERA ANDTOOK A SEAT IN THE AUDIENCE.

c David and Ann Peterson, 307 Upper Toyon, AP No. 7Z-O6L-1{ and 16. A use pernit to allow a caretakers'quarters (servants' quarters). A servantsr quarters isa secondary clwelling designed for and used only bypersons regularly employed on a property.

Lot lrea g4,SO5 sq. ft.Present Lot coverage 10.1*Proposed Lot coverage 10.1% (15t alloweal)Present Floor Area Ratio L2.gzApproved Floor Area Ratio L2.91 (15? alfowedt)

The existing covered carport is nonconforning in sideyard setback.Mr. James Fondel, attorney for Mr. peterson addressedthe Council. He said he reviewed all the documents andthought there were many issues that were not related tothe use permit. He said the Callaghan,s were presentto answer any questions. He did not feel there wereany health/safety concerns and he did not feel therewere any other issues other than an j.nterpretation ofthe ordinance-He said there was a question whether Mr. Callaghan wasconducting his business from the property.

Mr. Jacobs, attorney for Mr. Miehael Kane, did not feelthe application net the requirement of the Ordinanee.He felt that the unit should be desiqned for regularlyenployed caretakers. He did not feel that theCallaghans' employrnent met this condition. He askedthat the application be denied.

Mr. callaghan said he does not run a painting businessout of his home nor does he store tools and suppliesthere. He said that he keeps his tools in his truckwith a canper she1l and also shares a warehouse in SanRafael.

Councilrnember Brown said that the truck is parkedoutside his garage and there is hazardous materialstored in the truck. She was concerned that the Towndid not receive fu}1 taxes on the property and thatthis could set a bad precedence for the cornmunity,Councilmernber Brown felt that the bedroorn should beremoved and the area should be used as a garage.

In response to a question by Councilmernber Reid, TownAttorney Roth said that the Council has discretion onthe interpretation of the Code but that interpretationwould have to apply to all cases. He said that tnecode refers to regularly employed and does not sayfull-time employed.

25.

December 14. 1995

VANTANCE AND DEETGN REVIEW.H€rbert and Nancy tully, 19 woodsLdc lfay, ap 7t-252-o3, R-1!8-6 (Single Fanily Reaidenco, GroOO sq. ft. nintnun.ivarLance and desLgn review to allow thc removal of anexisting deck and cqnstrustion of an expandgat ateck slthbuilt-in benchss and a pool patlo expansion with a bullt-lnbench withln the rear yard s€tback f,ron Spring Roadt (tO feetrequlred, 2 fe€t proposed.) An exigtlng slorage shed nLll berenoved. An exLgting fence that extencls beyond th6 propcrtyline into ths I feet lnto the Sptlng Roaal rlght-ot-way willba rebuilt at a helght of 6 fEet.

I.ot Are4 23t5L6 sq. ft.Pr€sent Lot Cov€rage fe.ctPropoaed Lot Covcrage 19.2t (Zot peralttcd)Present Floor Arsa Batlo 16.9tProposed Floor Area Ratio 19.2t (2ot p€rnltt6it)

the exlstlng resldence, pool and patlo are nonconf,ornlng lns6tbaoks.

25.

The Council heard from Mr. Tu1ly who introduced hisarchitect, James McDonald. Mr. McDonald noted the irregularshape of the parcel and the lirnitirtions of sunlight on thesite. He said they planned to remove the playhouse.Mr. Broad noted the letter received fron Mr. and trtrs.Leonard Stafford expressing concerns regarding theproJectlons of the patio above Sprlng Road, opposite theirproPerty.Councilmernber Brown was concerned that this qrould bevisually intrusive to the Stafford property.Councilrnember Scott felt that it would have a visual effectfron Sprlng Road and asked that the deck be pulled back.Mr. Janes Wil.cox of Woodside Way spoke in favor of theplans, adding that any visual irnpact could be landscapedwith trees.Mr. Stafford said that he objected to the triangleprojection, only. He asked that he be shown any proposedlandscaping plans.Mrs. Wilcox said that all the other neighbors had approvedthe plans and spoke in favor of the project.Councilrnernbers Reid was concerned about the bulk and nass ofthe proJect and the Ln.rasion of privacy on Mr. Stafford'sproperty.Architect McDonald asked for a continuance so that thecontractor could re-stake the storey poles and pul1 the deckdirectly behind the landscaping.Mayor Goodman asked that the contractor re-stake the area indlfferent colors to show the project with the elimination ofthe triangular area. He further asked that the dinensionsbe shown on the drawings.Councilmember Brovrn moved to continue the matter, displayingthe two different plans as outlined by Mayor Goodman. Thiswas seconded by Councilmernber.Reid and passed unanlnousJ.y.

YARIAI{CE.ZAch and Alenandra UcReynoldls, 3{ Poplar Avenue, AE 73-272-05, R-1rB-10 (Elngle Fanily Resl,dence, t.OrOoO eg. ft.ninimun). variancE to allon the eonstrustton of a wallabovs 5 feet in helght along the side property llneoontiguoua wlth the conmerolally developed paroel at 32Poplar Avenu€. The 99 foot long concrete blocl( wall rlllhave brlok pilaeters and a briek cap. It trill b6 5 feet tallfor the f,irst 19 l6et extendling back from thc property lineon.Redwood Drlve, lncreasing to 8 feet tatl tor the next g

feet of Length, and 10 fqet { incheg tall for a lsngth of ?0feet.

(' rO

\s8

$

D€canb€r La, Lgg/S

Architect Kathy Strauss presented the plans lncludlng asample of the concrete blocks and bricks. she noted €nat altneighbors eupported the plans.Councilmember Scott expressed concern as to whether thefence would accomrnodate the water flow durlng heavy storrs.Public Works DLrector Elias said that building codes.andordinances regulate construction in flood areis.Councilrnenber scott noved approva] with the findings in thestaff report and the following conditions:l. That the lower portion of the fence be constructed asper the Public Works Dlrector.2. Landscaping shall be provided along the wal1 on the 34Poplar side. The Town Councll reserves the right to requirelandscape screening for up to two years fron project flnal.3. Drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the TownPubIlc works Director prior to wall lonstruction.4. A certified arborlst sha1l revlew and approve of finalwall design proximate'to the trees at the edge of theparklng lot on 32 Poplar Avenue.

This was seconded by Councilmernber Brown and passedunanimously.

21 DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE AI'IENDUENT.8t€ph€n coopar and fldiki oberhanner-cooper, t1 tfillowAvonue, AP 73-261-28, R-1:B-7.5 (Elngle fanily Bealdencc,71500 sq. ft. ninlnun). R€quest for variancs and deeignravLew approval to allow the following anendnente to Councilapprovedl planas

I A 2l aquare foot bay and a 2,t sguare foot balcony wereapprov€d within the north slde yard setback (I5 fe€trequired, 1a feet proposed.) An amendment to Lnsteadpernit a a.rl square foot additlon wlth a l{ square footbalcony within the side yard setback (15 fe€t requLredl,11 feet proposed) is requeetadl.A 2 X 5 foot flreplace nas approved. An atrendnent toinsteaal pernit a 3 X 9 foot flreplacer/wat€r heatercloset ie requested.Ellnination of steps fron the gueat bedroon to the r€ardleck Ls proposed, reducLng floor aroa by ,10 sguaref€et.

\a+

3

Lot ArEaPresent Lot Cov€rageProposed Lot Cov€ragePrsaont trIoor Area natloProposed Floor Arsa Ratio

11r250 sq. tt.,.9.?\lq.3t (20t pornitted)19.7t18.31 (20t p€mltt€d)

ftems 1 anal 2 nould lncrease the approved floor atsa by 52squarg feet. The net floor area lncreass fron the thrsereguesteal nodliflcations ls a 12 square f€ot, tncreaslngpreviously approvedl lot ooverage and floor area ratl.oa by. 1t.Mayor coodman said that this apptication is a situationwhere the construction did not conforn to the plans approvedby the Council. He said that he made it very llear to theapplicants that any changes would have to corne back beforethe Councl}. The neighbors informed the Town of, thenonconformities and the proJect was red tagged.The appticants' contractor explained that Lhe architect rnadea rnistake in the elevation and he had to alter the plans toallow for this error.

9

November L4, z0tt Minutesjj. The applicant shall provide a hard copy and a CD of an as-built set of drawings,

and a certification from all the design professionals to the building department certifying thatall construction was in accordance with the as-built plans and his/her recommendations.

18. The applicants and/or owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Townharmless along with the Town Council and Town boards, commissions, agents, officers,employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding ("action") against the Town,its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking toset aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability ordamages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shallpromptly notify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion,may tender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defendthe action with its attorneys with all attorneys fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town ineither case paid for by the applicant and/or owners.

council Member Hoertkorn reconvened her position on the Tawn Council.L6. 34 Poplar Avenue, Variance and Design Review No. 1933

Dante and Mouna Ghilotti, 34 Poplar Avenue, A.P. No. 73-272-OS, R-1:B-7.5 (SingleFamily Residence, 7,500 sq. ft. min lot size), Medium Low Density (3-5 units per acre),Zone A (High Risk Area with a LYo annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance offlooding over the life of a 30 year mortgage). Continued public hearing to consider arevised application for design review and variances for the following: L,) demotition ofshed along the south property line; 2,) 254 square foot addition to the residence,including a new bedroom within the required north side yard setback (15 feet required,2.5t feet proposed) and master bedroom extension partially within the required southside yard setback {15 feet required, 10.5 feet proposed); and 3.) L28 square foot deckand stairs to grade. One new tandem parking space is proposed behind the garage,within the north side yard setback.

Lot AreaExisting Floor Area RatioProposed Floor Area RatioExisting Lot CoverageProposed Lot CoverageExisti ng lmpervious SurfacesProposed lmpervious Surfaces

7,500 square feet2,092 sq. ft. 27,9%z,OgL sq. ft. 27.9% (2lo/o permitted)2,545 sq. ft. 3?.9%2,616 sq. ft. 34.9% l2O% permitted)2,352 sq. ft. 31.5o/o

2,352 sq. ft. 31..5%

Existing residence is nonconforming in setbocks ond parking.

Senior Planner Elise Semonian summarized the staff report and recommended that the Councilapprove the project subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the staff report.

Jared Polsky, architect, believed it is better to leave the historic garage with tandem parking inback. lt is better for the site. Widening the garage would take away one on-street parking, sothis proposal seems the least obtrusive solution to the parking problem.

Mayor Kuhl opened the public hearing on this item

25

l\l^.,6mh6r 1A anla i/lin,r+aa

Charlotte Levin, Poplar Ave. resident, expressed concern for the impact on the potential higherdensity, noise and quality of life. She further appreciated the Council's consideration on such

matters in the future.

There being no further public testimony on this item, the Mayor closed the public portion and

brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and action.

Council Member Small supported the project, but believed it is important to try and make thegarage as functional as possible. These small garages end up being used for storage rather thanparking. The current garage.is not functional. lf the door is not widened, the garage will never

be used as a garage. Architect Polsky stated to widen the garage they must add a steel frame,which is not very simple. lt is not just the door, but the header must be widened as well.

Council Member Hoertkorn noted support for the project, but agreed with Council MemberSmall's comments in regard to the garage.

Mayor Pro Tempore Brekhus supported the project

Mayor Kuhl asked for a motion.

Councii Member Small moved and Council Member Hoertkorn seconded, to approve 34Poplar Avenue, Variance and Deign Review No. 1933 subject to the findings and conditionsoutlined in the staff report, including widening the garage door opening as deemedappropriate by staff for an average size vehicle. Motion carried 4:1. Mayor Kuhl opposed.

34 Poplar Avenue Conditions:The following conditions of approval shall be reproduced on the cover sheet of the plans

submitted for a building permit:

1. The project shall substantially comply with the plans approved by theTswn Council dated LO/28/ L3.

2. The property owner shall maintain existing perimeter screening.3, Plans subrnitted for the building permit shall reflect any modifications

required by the Town Council and these conditions.4. All garage doors shall be automatic and one additional onsite parking

space shall be created prior to project final. The garage door openings shall be widened as

deemed appropriate by staff for an average sized vehicle.5. lmpervious surfaces shall be limited to existing conditions. Pervious

surfaces shall not be converted to impervious surfaces, even after project final, without prior

Town Council approval.6. The Town Council reserves the right to require additional landscape

screening for up to three (3) years from project final.7. No changes from the approved plans, before or after project final,

including changes to the materials and material colors.. shall be permitted without prior Townapproval. Red-lined plans showing any proposed changes shall be submitted to the Town forreview and approval prior to any change. The applicant is advised that changes made to thedesign during construction may delay the completion of the project and will not extend thepermitted construction period.

26

November L4, 20L3 Minutes

8. Any exterior lighting shall be included on plans submitted for the buildingpermit and is subject to the review and approval of the town planner. Lighting shall be shielded(no bare bulb light fixtures or down lights that may be visible from down-slope sites). Exteriorlighting of landscaping by any means shall not be permitted if it creates glare, hazard orannoyance for adjacent property owners. Lighting expressly designed to light exterior walls orfences that is visible from adjacent properties or public right-of-ways is prohibited. No uplighting is permitted. lnterior and exterior lighting fixtures shall be selected to enable maximum"cut-off" appropriate for the light source so as to strictly control the direction and pattern oflight and eliminate spill light to neighboring properties or a glowing night time character,

9. Applicants shall comply with all requirements of PG&E prior to projectfinal. Letter or email confirming compliance shall be submitted to the building department priorto project final.

10. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Marin MunicipalWater District (MMWD) for water service prior to project final including compliance with allindoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation. lndoorplumbing fixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape plans shall besubmitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance or exemption. The Code requires a landscapeplan, an irrigation plan, and a grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Titte 13 -Water Conservation should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed as a conditionof water service. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to theBackflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. For questions contact JosephEischens, Engineering Technician, at (415) 945-L531. Letter or email confirming complianceshall be submitted to the building department prior to project final.

77. Applicants shall comply with the requirements of the Ross Valley SanitaryDistrict No. l. letter dated September 25,2013, prior to project final.

L2. The project shall comply with the Fire Code and comments of the Ross

Valley Fire Department (RVFD) in the memo dated September 24,2013.13. The project shall comply with the following conditions of the Town of

Ross Building Department and Public Works Department:kk. Applicants may be required to return for additional Town Council review, which

requires payment of additional application fees, for any roof projections that are not identifiedon the plans submitted for Town Council review. Where a roof area is visible from off site, roofprojections shall be located to minimize their appearance. Exposed galvanized material is

discouraged. All vents and flue pipes shall utilize a finish to blend into adjacent surfaces. lfpossible, vents may be concealed from view in forms compatible with the structure. Vents forcooking appliances should be located or directed to avoid noise and odor impacts to adjacentsites and shall be located out of required setback areas.

ll. The plans submitted for the building permit shall detail the gutter anddownspout design and location for review and approval by the Town. Applicants may berequired to return for additional Town Council review, which requires payment of additionalapplication fees, for any gutters or downspouts that are not identified on the plans submittedfor Town Council review. A specification sheet shall be provided and the proposed color andfinish material shall be specified. Downspouts should be located to minimize their appearancefrom off site locations. Gutters and downspouts should have a finish to blend into adjacentsurfaces or underlying trim. Exposed galvanized material is not permitted. \

27

Nnrromhor 1a 1l.l11 Minrrfa<

mm. Exterior plumbing shall be removed and replaced with plumbing within the wallsofthe structure.

nn. Any person engaging in business within the Town of Ross must first obtain a

business license from the Town and pay the business license fee. Applicant shall provide thenames of the owner, architects, engineers and any other people providing project serviceswithin the Town, including names, addresses, e-mail, and phone numbers. All such people shallfile for a business license. A final list shall be submitted to the Town prior to project final.

oo. A registered Architect or Engineer's stamp and signature must be placed on allplan pages.

pp. The building department may require the applicant to submit a deposit prior tobuilding permit issuance to cover the anticipated cost for any Town consultants, such as thetown hydrologist, review of the project. Any additional costs incurred by the Town, includingcoststo inspector reviewthe project, shallbe paid as incurred and priorto projectfinal,

qq. No grading shall be permitted during the rainy season between October 15 andApril 15 unless permiiied iii writing by the Building Official/Director of Public'vVoi'ks. Gradlng is

considered to be any movement of earthen materials necessary for the completion of theproject. This includes, but is not limited to cutting, filling, excavation for foundations, and thedrilling of pier holes. lt does not include the boring or test excavations necessary for a soilsengineering investigation. All temporary and permanent erosion control measures shall be inplace prior to October 1.

rr. Prior to any ciemolition or issuance of a building permit for ihe new struciure,which was constructed priorto 1985, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey shall be providedto the Town building department for review by the Building Official. lf asbestos-containingmaterials are determined to be present, the materials should be abated by a certified asbestosabatement contractor in accordance with the regulations and notification requirements of theBay Area Air Quality Management District. lf lead-based paint is identified, then federal andstate construction worker health and safety regulations should be followed during renovationor denrolition activities. lf loose or peeling lead-based paint is identified, it should be removedby a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardouswaste regulations.

ss. The drainage design shall comply with the Town's stormwater ordinance (Ross

Municipal Code Chapter 15.54). A drainage plan and hydrologic/hydraulic analysis shall be

submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the buildingofficial/public works director, who may consult with the town hydrologist at the applicants'expense (a deposit may be required). The plan shall be designed, at a minimum, to produce nonet increase in peak runoff from the site compared to pre-project conditions (no net increase

standard). As far as practically feasible, the plan shall be designed to produce a net decrease inpeak runoff from the site compared to pre-project conditions. Applicants are encouraged tosubmit a drainage plan designed to produce peak runoff from the site that is the same or less

than estimated natural, predevelopment conditions which existed at the site prior toinstallation of impermeable surfaces and other landscape changes (natural predevelopmentrate standard). Construction of the drainage system shall be supervised, inspected andaccepted by a professional engineer and certified as-built drawings of the construrcted facilitiesand a ietter of certification shall be provided to the Town building department prior to projectfinal.

i. The property owner shall repair the driveway approach over the gutter pan on

Redwood Avenue prior to project final.

28

November L4, 2OL3 Minutes

tt. An encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public Works priorto any work within a public right-of-way.

uu. The plans submitted for a building permit shall include a detailed constructionand traffic management plan for review and approval of the building official, in consultationwith the town planner and police chief. The plan shall include as a minimum: tree protection,management of worker vehicle parking, location of portable toilets, areas for material storage,traffic control, method of hauling and haul routes, size of vehicles, and washout areas.

vv. The applicant shall submit a schedule that outlines the scheduling of the sitedevelopment to the building official. The schedule should clearly show completion of all sitegrading activities prior to the winter storm season and include implementation of an erosioncontrol plan. The construction schedule shall detail how the project will be completed withinthe construction completion date provided for in the construction completion chapter of theRoss Municipal Code (Chapter 15.50).

ww. A copy of the building permit shall be posted at the site and emergency contactinformation shall be up to date at all times.

xx. The Building Official and other Town staff shall have the right to enter theproperty at all times during construction to review or inspect construction, progress,compliance with the approved plans and applicable codes.

yy. lnspections shall not be provided unless the Town-approved building permitplans are available on site.

zz. Working Hours are limited to Monday to Friday B:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Construction is not permitted at any time on Saturday and Sunday or the following holidays:New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, lndependence Day,Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. lf the holiday falls on a Sunday,the following Monday shall be considered the holiday. lf the holiday falls on a Saturday, theFriday immediately preceding shall be considered the holiday. Exceptions: 1.) Work done solelyin the interior of a building or structure which does not create any noise which is audible fromthe exterior; or 2.) Work actually physically performed solely bythe owner of the property, onSaturday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and not at any time on Sundays or theholidays listed above. (RMC Sec. 9.20.035 and 9.20.060).

aaa. Failure to comply in any respect with the conditions or approved plansconstitutes grounds for Town staff to immediately stop work related to the noncompliance untilthe matter is resolved. (Ross Municipal Code Section 18.39.1.00). The violations may be subjectto additional penalties as provided in the Ross Municipal Code and State law, lf a stop workorder is issued, the Town may retain an independent site monitor at the expense of theproperty owner prior to allowing any further grading and/or construction activities at the site.

bbb. A single geotechnical engineering report, containing all recommendedgeotechnical design criteria for the project, shall be submitted with the building permit plansfor review by the building official. All geotechnical aspects of the proposed project andpreliminary development of plans shall continue to be evaluated by the project geotechnicalconsultant. A letter from the project geotechnical consultant shall be prepared that approvesall geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development layout, verifies project geotechnicalfeasibility, and verifies conformance with the geotechnical consultant's designrecommendations.

ccc. Materials shall not be stored in the public right-of-way. The project owners andcontractors shall be responsible for maintaining all roadways and right-of-ways free of theirconstruction-related debris. All construction debris, including dirt and mud, shall be cleaned

29

November L4, z0lt Minutes

and cleared immediately. All loads carried to and from the site shall be securely covered, andthe public right-of-way must be kept free of dirt and debris at all times. Dust control usingreclaimed water shall be required as necessary on the site or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers onall unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at site. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil,sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.

ddd. Applicants shall comply with all requirements of all utilities including, the MarinMunicipal Water District, Ross Valley Sanitary District, and PG&E prior to project final. Lettersconfirming compliance shall be submitted to the building department prior to project final.

eee. The director of public works may require all electric, communication andtelevision service laterals to be placed underground.

fff. All smoke detectors in the residence shall be provided with AC power and beinterconnected for simultaneous alarm. Detectors shall be located in each sleeping room,outside of sleeping rooms centrally located in the corridor and over the center of allstairways with a minimum of one detector per story of the occupied portion of the.^^iJ^h-^rcJtuEr lLE,

ggg. Carbon monoxide alarms shall be provided outside of each dwelling unitsleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedroom(s) and on every level of a dwellingunit.

hhh. Address numbers at least 4" tall shall be in place adjacent to the frontdoor. lf not clearly visible from the street, additional numbers are required. The address numbersshall be internally illuminated or illi.rniinated by an adjacent lieht coirtrolled by a photoceiland switched only by a breaker so the numbers will remain illuminated all night.

iii. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to repair any roaddamage caused by the construction. Applicant is advised that, absent clear video evidence tothe contrary, road damage must be repaired to the satisfaction of the Town prior to projectfinal. Damage assessment will be at the sole discretion of the Town, and neighborhood inputwill be considered in making that assessment,

jjj. This project is subject to the conditions of the Town of Ross ConstructionCompletion Ordinance {copies available at qww.townofross.grg). lf constiuction is notcompleted by the construction completion date provided for in that ordinance, the owner willbe subject to automatic penalties with no further notice. As provided in the Town of Ross

Municipal Code Section 15.50.040, construction shall be complete upon the final performanceof all construction work, including: exterior repairs and remodeling; total compliance with allconditions of application approval, including required landscaping; and the clearing andcleaning of all construction-related materials and debris from the site. Final inspection andwritten approval of the applicable work by Town Building, Planning and Fire Department staffshall mark the date of construction completion.

kkk. Flood resistant materials shall be used below the finished floor. All structural andnon-structural building materials at or below the base flood elevation must be flood resistant. Aflood-resistant material is defined as any building material capable of withstanding direct andprolonged contact with floodwaters without sustaining significant damage. Flood-resistantmaterials must be used for all building elements subject to exposure to floodwaters, includingfloor joists, insulation, and drrctwork. Any building utility systems within the crawlspace mustbe eievated above the base flood elevation or designed so that floodwaters cannot enter oraccumulate within the system components during flood conditions. Ductwork, in particular,must either be placed above the base flood elevation or sealed from floodwaters. (See FEMATechnical Bulletins 2-93 and L1-01 at http://www.fema.Rov/ for more information

30

November t4, 2OL3 Minutes

lll. A FEMA elevation certificate shall be submitted to the Town with the buildingpermit plans and prior to project final.

mmm. The Department of Public Works may require a grading security in the form of a

Certificate of Deposit (CD) or cash to cover grading, drainage, and erosion control. Contact theDepartment of Public Works for details.

nnn, The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the building permitapplication for review by the building official/director of public works. The plan shall include a

signed statement by the soils engineer that erosion control is in accordance with Marin CountyStormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) standards. The erosion control planshall demonstrate protection of disturbed soil from rain and surface runoff and demonstratesediments controls as a "back-up" system. (Temporary seeding and mulching or straw mattingare effective controls. ).

ooo. The Soils Engineer shall provide a letter to the Department of Public Workscertifying that all grading and drainage has been constructed according to plans filed with thegrading permit and his/her recommendations. Any changes in the approved grading anddrainage plans shall be certified by the Soils Engineer and approved by the Department ofPublic Works. No modifications to the approved plans shall be made without approval of theSoils Engineer and the Department of Public Works,

ppp. The existing vegetation shall not be disturbed until landscaping is installed orerosion control measures, such as straw matting, hydroseeding, etc, are implemented

qqq. All cracked, broken or uplifted sidewalk fronting the property shall be replaced.rrr. The construction management plan shall be submitted in time to be

incorporated into the job set of plans. The construction management plan shall become a

binding document, and failure to adhere to the plan may result in stoppage of the project.sss. Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according to the Ross Municipal Code.

Trees and shrubs shall be kept trimmed so that the lowest branches projecting over publicproperties provide clearance required by the Department of Public Works. Bushes and othervegetation shall be trimmed so no portion hangs over the sidewalk, or the road if no sidewalk ispresent.

ttt. All construction materials, debris and equipment shall be stored on site. lf that is

not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department ofPublic Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris, debris boxes or unlicensedequipment in the right-of-way.

uuu. The applicant shall provide a hard copy and a CD of an as-built set of drawings,and a certification from all the design professionals to the building deparlment certifying thatall construction was in accordance with the as-built plans and his/her recommendations.

L4. The applicants and/or owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Townharmless along with the Town Council and Town boards, commissions, agents, officers,employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding ("action") against the Town,its boards, commissions, agents, offlcers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking toset aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability ordamages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shallpromptly notify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion,may tender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defendthe action with its attorneys with all attorneys fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town ineither case paid for by the applicant and/or owners.

31

April 9,2015 Minutesvariance to permit the walls to exceed the six foot height limit, approve a floor area variance topermit the pool equipment room to have a ceiling height over 7 feet, and approve other sitewall modifications, based on the findings submitted by the applicant, the findings in Resolution1.832, and subject to the following conditions:

L The venting for all pool equipnlent_shall be permanentlv relocated to theqfq-{ltorthwest of thg-pqol and thAll be constrLfcted in a manner to minimize the direction ofnoise towards the pr.gpertv at_L9lanvon Road includine, but not limited to, doublins the ventoutput size as compared to the original location in the oool room. Furthermore, anv and allventing from the existing pool room that exits the west wall Fhall be permanentlvdecommissioned and removed via a masoJr.V seal over the existinq vent hole.

2. Prior to project final, the applicant shall remove the stone and concretestairs and railings to Winding Way, located in the north corner of the site and partially withinthe right-of-way, and shall restore the area to a natural and unimproved state.

3. The pool equipment room is permitted to have a ceiling height in excessof 7 feet but shall not be used for habitable space and cannot be traded off for other floor areain the future.

4. The applicants and/or owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Townharmless along with the Town Council and Town boards, commissions, agents, officers,employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding ("action") against the Town,its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking toset aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability ordamages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shallpromptly notify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion,may tender the defense of the action to the applicants andlor owners or the Town may defendthe action with its attorneys with all attorneys fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town ineither case paid for by the applicant and/or owners.

2L 34 Poplar Avenue, Amendment to Variance and Design Review Permit No. 1933Dante and Mouna Ghilotti, 34 Poplar Avenue, A.P. No. 73-272-05, R-1:B-7.5 (Single

Family Residence, 7,500 sq. ft. min lot size), Medium Low Density (3-5 units per acre),Zone AE (High Risk Area with a l-% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance offlooding over the life of a 30 year mortgage) and within Floodway. Public hearing toconsider amendments to an application for design review and variances approvedNovember L4,2AL3. The proposed project includes the following: 1.) demolition ofshed along the south property line; 2.) 189 square foot addition to the first floor of theresidence, including a new den within the required north side yard setback (15 feetrequired, 2.51 feet proposed) and master bedroom extension partially within therequired south side yard setback {1.5 feet required, 10.5 feet proposed); 3.} interiorremodel; 4.) rear deck and stairs to grade; and 4.) new dormer on west facing roof andimprovement of 439 square feet of attic area for a bedroom. A nonconformity permit is

requested to relocate the garage, which is nonconforming in setbacks, approximately11..5' to the east to permit development of two uncovered parking spaces between thegarage and Redwood Avenue. lf the dormer addition is not supported, the applicantsrequest an Attic Exception to permit improvement of 390 square feet of the attic area as

floor area, without the 49 sq. ft. dormer addition.

25

April 9, 2015 Minutes

lot AreaApproved Floor Area RatioProposed Floor Area RatioApproved tot CoverageProposed Lot CoverageApproved lmpervious SurfacesProposed lmpervious Surfaces

7,500 square feet2,092 sq. ft. 27.9o/o

2,482 sq. ft. 33.lYo* l2A%permittedl2,616 sq. ft. 34,9%2,616 sq. ft. 34.9% l2O% permittedl2,362 sq. ft. 3t.5%2,352 sq. ft. 3t.5%

*Additional3g0 floor area is for improvement of existing attic spaceThe existing residence is nonconforming in setbacks and parking.

Senior Planner Elise Semonian summarized the staff report and recommended that the Councilapprove the project subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the staff report.

Jared Polsky, architect, explained that if they keep the same depth size with the smalleraddition they will have less lot coverage than previously approved. The master bedroom ls

actually narrow. He wanted to keep the 10 ft., but it will be slightly more than 128 sq. ft.because the deck is wider. He wanted to have a deep enough deck to provide a table andchairs. Senior Planner Semonian had no objection because it will be essentially the same.

Mayor Brekhus pointed out that the staff report states, "approved floor oreo ratio 2092."Senior Planner Semonian noted that it included the garage space (L7S5 for living space, plus thegarage. 390 sq. ft. of additional living space is in the attic). Prior approval for all that space was-4rr-- r-. ... l-,.-ll --- -- rl-- .-rt-- --.--- _i._ _.. l__rt_ ?L- f,rE- ,--^^^:-rL-^AA-- Aat []le IUWeI level Ueuduse [ile EdIate 15 tne Saine SaZe Oil Ootil. iile [iaTTefei-tce i5 Ine 5yU 5q. TI.

of attic area.

Council Member Robbins felt the decks should remain as approved. lt is above grade. A large

elevated deck is not appropriate. She did not support a curb cutout, which takes awayneigh borhood property.

Mayor Brekhus opened the public hearing on this item, and seeing no one wishing to speak, theiviayr.rr ciusetj iire pubiic poriiuri arid bruug,iii iiie rrraller irack tuiire Coui"rcii for disciissiorr ailtlaction.

Mayor Brekhus noted that it is 128 sq. ft, vs. 140 sQ. ft., it is next to the commercial district andhouses all along that street are over built. She felt being able to have a usable deck with a tableand chairs is reasonable, She had no objection because the neighbors are getting such an

improved condition.

Council Member Small agreed with the 128 sq. ft. The shed structure has been a buffer andwhen that is gone it will open the area up. This is turning a very small home into a four-bedroom home. This will be an impact.

Council Member Robbins did not understand why story poles were not erected because it is alarger deck and they have no idea of the appearance. She felt an elevated deck will be impactfulwhen the homes are so close together. She reiterated that the deck should remain as approved.

26

April 9, 2015 Minutes

Mayor Brekhus asked for a motion.

€ouncil Member Robbins moved and Mayor Pro Tempore Hoertkorn seconded, to approve 34Poplar Avenue, Amendment to Variance and Design Review Permit No. 1933 subject to thefindings and conditions outlined in the staff report; with the deck to remain as approved at128 sq. ft.; with no curb cut; and the driveway to remain as sited.

34 Poplar Avenue Conditions of ApprovahUnderline ond strikethrough indicate modifications made to the conditions recommended bystaff by the Town Council at the public meeting.

The following conditions of approval shall be reproduced on the cover sheet of the plans

submitted for a building permit:

1. The project shall substantially comply with the plans approved by the TownCouncil on April 9,2AL5, except otherwise approved by the Town Council.

2. The lot coverage of the site shall be maintained atthe existing level by reductionof the proposed rear deck area. No increase in lot coverage is permitted, even if roof eaveswere counted in 2013.

3. An encroachment permit is required from public works for any modification tothe curb and curb drainage. The property owner shall repair the driveway approach over thegutter pan on Redwood Avenue prior to project final. The width of the curb cut on RedwoodDrive and garage approach shall be maintainedanV++ee++a*ing

4. The property owner shall maintain existing perimeter screening. Additionallandscape screening shall be required to replace cypress trees removed for fire clearance.

5. The garage doors shall be automatic and two additional onsite parking spaceshall be created prior to project final. The garage door openings shall be widened as far aspractically feasible for an average sized vehicle.

6. lmpervious surfaces shall be limited to existing conditions. Pervious surfacesshall not be converted to impervious surfaces, even after project final, without prior TownCouncil approval.

7. The Town Council reserves the right to require additional landscape screeningfor up to three (3) years from project final.

8. No changes from the approved plans, including changes to the materials andmaterial colors, shall be permitted without prior Town approval. Red-lined plans showing anyproposed changes shall be submitted to the Town for review and approval prior to any change.The applicant is advised that changes made to the design during construction may delay thecompletion of the project and willnot extend the permitted construction period.

9. Any exterior lighting shall be included on plans submitted for the building permitand is subject to the review and approval of the town planner, Lighting shall be shielded (nobare bulb light fixtures or down lights that may be visible from down-slope sites). Exteriorlighting of landscaping by any means shall not be permitted if it creates glare, hazard orannoyance for adjacent property owners. Lighting expressly designed to light exterior walls orfences that is visible from adjacent properties or public right-of-ways is prohibited. No uplighting is permitted. lnterior and exterior lighting fixtures shall be selected to enable maximum

27

April 9, 2015 Minutes

"cut-off' appropriate for the light source so as to strictly control the direction and pattern oflight and eliminate spill light to neighboring properties or a glowing night time character.

10. Applicants shall comply with all requirements of PG&E prior to project final.Letter or email confirming compliance shall be submitted to the building department prior toproject final.

LL. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Marin Municipal WaterDistrict (MMWD) for water service prior to project final including compliance with all indoorand outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation. lndoor plumbingfixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape plans shall be submitted, and

reviewed to confirm compliance or exemption. The Code requires a landscape plan, an

irrigation plan, and a grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Title t3 - WaterConservation should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497.Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed as a condition ofwater service. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the BackflowPrevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. For questions contact Joseph Eischens,

Engineering Technician, at (415) 945-1531. Letter or emai! confirming compliance shall be

submitted to the building department prior to project final.L2. Applicants shall comply with the requirements of the Ross Valley Sanitary District

No. 1 prior to project final. The applicants are responsible for contacting the District and

ensuring that all conditions are met prior to project final.13. The project shall comply with the Fire Code and comments of the Ross Valley

Fire Department during their review of the building permit plans.

L4. The project shall comply with the following conditions of the Town of Ross

Building Department and Public Works Department:

a. The building department may require the applicant to submit a depositprior to building permit issuance to cover the anticipated cost for any Town consultants, such as

the town hydrologist, review of the project, Any additional costs incurred by the Town,including costs to inspect or review the project, shall be paid as incurred and prior to projectfinal.

b. Prior to any demolition or issuance of a building permit, which was

constructed prior to 1985, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey shall be provided to theTown building departmerrt for review by the Buildirrg Official. lf asbestos-containing materialsare determined to be present, the materials should be abated by a certified asbestos

abatement contractor in accordance with the regulations and notification requirements of theBay Area Air Quality Management District. lf lead-based paint is identified, then federal and

state construction worker health and safety regulations should be followed during renovationor demolition activities. lf loose or peeling lead-based paint is identified, it should be removedby a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardouswaste regulations

c. The drainage design shall comply with the Town's stormwater ordinances(Ross Municipal Code Chapters 15.54 and 12.28).

d. The plans submitted for a building permit shall include a detailedconstruction and traffic management plan for review and approval of the building official, inconsultation with the town planner and police chief. The plan shall include as a minimum: treeprotection, management of worker vehicle parking, location of portable toilets, areas formaterial storage, traffic control, method of hauling and haul routes, size of vehicles, and

washout areas.

28

April 9, 2015 Minutes

e. The applicant shall submit a schedule that outlines the scheduling of thesite development to the building official. The schedule should clearly show completion of allsite grading activities prior to the winter storm season and include implementation of anerosion control plan. The construction schedule shall detail how the project will be completedwithin the construction completion date provided for in the construction completion chapter ofthe Ross Municipal Code (Chapter 15.50).

t. A copy of the building permit shall be posted at the site and emergencycontact information shall be up to date at all times.

g- The Building Official and other Town staff shall have the right to enter theproperty at all times during construction to review or inspect construction, progress,compliance with the approved plans and applicable codes.

h. lnspections shall not be provided unless the Town-approved buildingpermit plans are available on site.

i. Working Hours are limited to Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:0O p.m.Construction is not permitted at any time on Saturday and Sunday or the following holidays:New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, lndependence Day,Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgivin gDay, and Christmas Day. lf the holiday falls on a Sunday,the following Monday shall be considered the holiday. lf the holiday falls on a Saturday, theFriday immediately preceding shall be considered the holiday. Exceptions: 1.) Work done solelyin the interior of a building or structure which does not create any noise which is audible fromthe exterior; or 2.) Work actually physically performed solely by the owner of the property, onSaturday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and not at any time on Sundays or theholidays listed above. (RMC Sec. 9.20.035 and 9.20.060).

i. Materials shall not be stored in the public right-of-way. The projectowners and contractors shall be responsible for maintaining all roadways and right-of-ways freeof their construction-related debris. All construction debris, including dirt and mud, shall becleaned and cleared immediately. All loads carried to and from the site shall be securelycovered, and the public right-of-way must be kept free of din and debris at all times. Dustcontrol using reclaimed water shall be required as necessary on the site or apply (non-toxic) soilstabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at site. Cover stockpilesof debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.

k. Flood resistant materials shall be used below the finished floor. Allstructural and non-structural building materials at or below the base flood elevation must beflood resistant. A flood-resistant material is defined as any buitding material capable ofwithstanding direct and prolonged contact with floodwaters without sustaining significantdamage. Flood-resistant materials must be used for all building elements subject to exposure tofloodwaters, including floor joists, insulation, and ductwork. Any building utility systems withinthe crawlspace must be elevated above the base flood elevation or designed so thatfloodwaters cannot enter or accumulate within the system components during floodconditions. Ductwork, in particular, must either be placed above the base flood elevation orsealed from floodwaters. (See FEMA Technical Bulletins 2-93 and 11-01 athttp :l/www,fema.gov/ for more information )

l. A FEMA elevation certificate shall be submitted to the Town with thebuilding permit plans and prior to project final.

m. The Building Department may require a No Rise Certification prior toissuance of a building permit.

29

April 9, 2015 Minutes

n. All cracked, broken or uplifted sidewalk fronting the property shall bereplaced.

o. Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according to the Ross MunicipalCode. Trees and shrubs shall be kept trimmed so that the lowest branches projecting overpublic properties provide clearance required by the Department of Public Works. Bushes andother vegetation shall be trimmed so no portion hangs over the sidewalk, or the road if nosidewalk is present.

p. All construction materials, debris and equipment shall be stored on site.lf that is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from theDepartment of Public Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris, debris boxes orunlicensed equipment in the right-of-way.

15. The applicants and/or owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Townharmless along with the Town Council and Town boards, commissions, agents, officers,employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding {"action") against the Town,its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking toset aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability ordamages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shallpromptly notify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion,may tender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defendthe action with its attorneys with all attorneys fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town ineither case paid for by the applicant and/or owners.

22. 32 Allen Avenue, Variance, Design Review and Demolition Permit No. 1982Courtney Lynch, 32 Allen Avenue, A,P. No. 73-26L-39, R-1:B-7.5 (Single FamilyResidence, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size), Medium Low Density (3-5 units per acre),Zone AE (High Risk Area with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26%io chance offlooding over the life of a 3O-year mortgage) and Zone X {wcst sidc outside of High Risk

Area). Review of application for demolition permit, design review, variance andnonconformity permit. The proposed project involves a significant remodel (potentiallyfull demolition) and addition to the existing residence and modifications to thelandscaping including: L.) replacement of windows and doors on each elevation; 2.)moclification of srcling fr(:rm paintecl horizontal sicling to cedar shingles with a semi-transparent grey stain;3.) elevating the residence 9" to prevent flooding;4.)modification to the roof form, including an increase in the maximum ridge height; 5.)

demolition of structures at the rear of the property (carport, covered patio, shed and

cottage); 6.) new landscaping including a new pool within the rear yard setback, patios,arbors, fencing, gates, lighting ahd planting; and 7.) removal of four trees.

Lot AreaExisting Floor Area RatioProposed Floor Area RatioExisting Lot CoverageProposed lot €overageExisting lmpervious SurfacesProposed lmpervious Surfaces

L1-,07I square feet2,596 sq.ft. 23.4%2,595 sq. ft. 23.4% l2oo/o permittedl2,573 sq. ft. 23.2%

2,209 sq. ft. 20.0% (20% permittedf4,775 sq.ft. 4?.L%4,035 sq. ft. ?5.5o/o

30

ATTACHMENT 6

luly 21-,2020 ADR Group Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

Meeting of theRoss Advisory Design Review Group

Tuesday, July 2L,2020

Video and audio recording of the meeting is available online at the Town's website attownof ross.org/meeti n gs.

L. 7:00 p.m. CommencementChair Mark Kruttschnitt called the meetingto order. Josepha Buckingham, Mark Fritts, and Dan

Winey were present. Stephen Sutro was absent at the start of the meeting. Planning and

Building Director Patrick Streeter and Planner Matthew Weintraub representing staff werepresent.

2. Open Time for Public CommentsNo public comments were submitted

3. Old Business

a. Tracy Residence, 33 Bolinas AvenueApplicant: Rodgers Arch itectu re

Owner: Tracy Family Trust (Libby Tracy)DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review to lift the existing two-storysingle-family residence 5 feet above its existing elevation in its current location, therebycreating a new crawlspace level beneath the existing home. The project would increase

the building height from24'-3" to29'-3" , while reducing the existing nonconforming floorarea. The project would involve replacing the existing separate front entrances to thefirst and second stories with a new single-level covered entry porch at the new first floorelevation, and replacing the existing back stairs with new stairs and landings that access

both stories at the new floor elevations. The project would also update the fenestrationat the first and second stories with new and modified windows and doors.Continued from the June 16, 2010 meeting.

Planner Weintraub introduced the project. No written comments were received. ArchitectAndrew Rodgers described the revised project. ADR Group Members discussed the meritsof the project. No members of the public provided comment.

Stephen Sutro joined the meeting.

ADR Group Members provided the following comments:

L

Dan Winev:

July 21, 2020 ADR Group Meeting Minutes

o Front elevation is quite nice: porch addition, column proportions, window articulationo Recommends thickening the porch fascia, extending the belly band around to the side

elevations, omitting the spiral stair, better relating the front and back porch designs,

using stone cladding at the base, and further review of landscape plan and

colors/materia ls.

Josefa Buckinghamr Agrees with masonry (non-stucco) base.r Front porch is welcoming and neighborhood-friendly.o Recommends omitting the spiral stair, enclosing pool equipment and locating it away

from neighbors, using copper gutters in front, extending the belly band around to theside elevations, using stone cladding at the base, and further review of landscape planand colors/materials.

Mark Fritts:o Recommends thickening the porch fascia, omitting the spiral stair, better relating the

front and back porch designs, using stone cladding at the base, and further review oflandscape plan and colors/materials.

. Supports the proposed front porch setback encroachment for better architecturaldesign,

Mark Kruttschnitt:o The project looks great from the street.r Recommends thickening the porch fascia, omitting the spiral stair, better relating the

front and back porch designs, locating pool equipment away from neighbors, andfurther review of landscape plan and colors/materials.

The ADR Group voted to recommend that the project is consistent with the purpose ofDesign Review and the Design Review criteria and standards per RMC Section 1-8.41-.100,

subject to the following conditions:o Thickening the porch fascia.o Omitting the spiral stair.r Better relating the front and back porch designs.r Extending the belly band around to the side elevations.. Using stone cladding at the base.r Further review of landscape plan by staff and/or ADR Group prior to Town Council

consideration.The recommendation was supported unanimously (4-0-1). Stephen Sutro abstained.

The Chair closed the hearing.

The Chair reorganized the agenda to hear ltem 4.b next.

2

luly 21, 2020 ADR Group Meeting Minutes

4. New Business

b. Marin Art & Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake BoulevardApplicant: Jessica Fairchild, AIA

Owner: Marin Art & Garden Center (MAGC)

DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Advisory Design Review to installa new temporary facing on the existing primary sign located on Sir Francis DrakeBoulevard.

Planner Weintraub introduced the project. No written comments were received. ADR

Group Members discussed the merits of the project. No members of the public providedcomment.

ADR Group Members provided the following comments:

Josefa Buckinsham

Recommends reversing light/da rk schemea

Dan Wineva Recommends darker background and maintaining existing type style.

Mark Fritts:o Recommends toning down the bright background and maintaining existing type style

Stephen Sutro:o Recommends higher quality sign materials and construction methods

Mark Kruttschnitt:a Recommends darker background

a

Antonia Adezio and Diane Doodha of MAGC spoke on the merits of the project.

The Chair closed the hearing.

Shouger Residence, 34 Poplar AvenueApplicant: lmprints Landscape ArchitectureOwner: Jeff & Cassie ShougerDESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Design Review to construct a new pool/spa,arbor structure, and outdoor kitchen in the side and rear yards, and a new stone patioand fountain in the front yard, of the existing single-family residence. The proposedproject also includes: replacing existing fences, patios, walkways, and paving, andinstalling new landscape plantings and artificial turf.

Planner Weintraub introduced the project and summarized 8 written comments received: l-

commenter supporting the project (Lisa Gorham, 18 Redwood Drive); 7 commenters

3

luly 2L, 2020 ADR Group Meeting Minutes

objecting to the project based on potential privacy impacts of the new pool, lack ofavailable off-street parking for guests, potential fire hazard created by the new fire pit,location of the project in a flood zone, and potential survey errors (Jeff & CatherineBabcock, L4 Redwood Drive; Ann C. Morrissey, 36 Poplar Avenue; Sue & Ken Dale, 25

Redwood Drive; Dick Bobo, 16 Redwood Drive; Charlotte Levin, 38 Poplar Avenue; BarbaraL. Gately, 19 Redwood Drive; Laura London & Alan Sandler, 2l- Redwood Drive). Jeff &Cassie Shouger and landscape architect Brad Eigsti described the project. ADR GroupMembers discussed the merits of the project.

Barbara L. Gately, 19 Redwood Drive; and Margaret Francis, 20 Redwood Drive, providedcomments objecting to the project based on potential impacts of the new pool.

Michael Gorman, l-8 Redwood Drive, provided comment supporting the project.

ADR Group Members provided the following comments

Dan Winev. Sympathetic to the constrained site abutting a commercial office building.o Recommends more open street presence on Poplar Avenue, and treating Redwood

Avenue as another front yard.r Site is too small for a pool given the scale of existing development, proximity to

neighbors, and front and back street frontages.. Supports the arbor/outdoor kitchen area and fire pit. Does not support the pool.

Steohen SutroRecommends more open street presence on Poplar Avenue, and treating RedwoodAvenue as another front yard.

Pool location is reasonable considering that conforming to the minimum requiredsetbacks do not effectively mitigate noise and privacy impacts on small lots.Supports proposed project as submitted.

Mark Fritts:r Treat Redwood Avenue as a rear yard; make Poplar Avenue the true front elevation.. Spa location is too close to the south neighbor.o Relocating pool/spa to the center of the small lot would have minimal effect on privacy

concerns.. The property does not support a pool; not every property in Ross can support a pool.. Supports the arbor/outdoor kitchen area. Does not support the pool.

Pool is too close to the property line (notwithstanding the nonconforming neighboringresidence).

This property probably doesn't support a pool at all.

a

a

a

Mark Kruttschnitt:a

a

4

luly 21, 2020 ADR Group Meeting Minutes

The only possible suitable location for a pool is at the north side of the lot adjacent tothe existing commercial property.Supports the arbor/outdoor kitchen area. Does not support the pool in setbacks.

Josefa Buckingham:. Supports a more inviting Poplar Avenue elevation.r Pool is too close to the adjacent property to the south.r The only possible suitable location for a pool is atthe north side of the lot adjacent to

the existing commercial property, with "green wall" landscape screening at southproperty line.

. Supports the arbor/outdoor kitchen area. Does not support the pool.

The Chair conducted a poll of ADR Group Members of potential support for an alternativedesign with the proposed new pool located at the north side of the lot adjacent to theexisting commercial property. Josefa Buckingham, Mark Kruttschnitt, and Stephen Sutrosupported the alternative. Dan Winey and Mark Fritts did not support the alternative.

The ADR Group voted to recommend that the project is consistent with the purpose ofDesign Review and the Design Review criteria and standards per RMC Section 18.41.100.The recommendation was not supported (1-4-0). Stephen Sutro dissented.

The Chair conducted a poll of ADR Group Members of potential support for an alternativedesign including all currently proposed project elements except the pool. The alternativewas unanimously supported.

The Chair closed the hearing.

5. Communicationsa. StaffDirector Streeter reported on the upcoming application process for ADR Groupmembership.

b. Advisory Design Review GroupADR Group Members provided updates on applications for ADR Group membership

6. Approval of Minutesa. June 4,2020b. June 15,2020

The ADR Group unanimously approved the June 4, 2O2O and June L6,2O2O minutes.

a

a

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:19 PM

5

ATTACHMENT 7

From:IO:

Subject:Date:

Cate Babcock

ADRGroup

34 Poplar Ave.

Tuesday, July 14,2020 3:30:52 PM

Good afternoon, Group,

As neighbors of the residents at 34 Poplar Ave. we oppose the proposed construction. Theextensive project, particularly the pool, will either severely impact the next residence or, ifmoved closer to Redwood Drive, will create more noise for the neighborhood. The issues qfsetbacks and parking for guests are also salient variables we hope you will consider in yourdecision.

Sincerely,Jeff and Catherine Babcock14 Redwood Dr, Ross, CA94957

Matthew Weintraub

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subiect:Attachments:

Ann Morrissey <annmorrissey@comcast.net>Tuesday, July L4,2020 4:21" PM

Matthew WeintraubPatrick StreeterLetter to Planning re: Shougar residence applicationLetter to Ross Planning re- Shougar application.docx

Hi Matthew and Patrick,

Attached please find my letter to Ross Planning Department in advance of the ADR Group hearing on July 2I,2O2O

I trust this will be considered timely filed and will be included in the ADR Group agenda packet.

Thank you,

AnnAnn Morrissey

1

Ann C. MorrisseyP.O. Box 142736 Poplar Ave.Ross, CA 94957June 14,2020

Town of RossPlanning DepartmentP.O. Box 320Ross, CA 94957

Shougar Residence Application for Landscape lmprovement34 Poplar Ave.

Attn: Planner Matthew Weintraub via mweintraub@townofross.orq

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Members of the Advisory Design Review Group,

As one of the three adjacent neighbors to the Shougar residence at 34 Poplar,I have the following comments on the plans prepared and submitted by lmprintsLandscape Architects and the approvals they are requesting:

The plans reference a "professionally survey" and their landscape architect told me andemailed he has a survey and he would send but has not done so. He later stated hisdimensions were based on previous measurements by someone else. The south sideboundary needs to be surveyed and marked before new fences are built.

The planting material along the fence between 34 Poplar and 36 Poplar needs to be tallenough to serve as a privacy barrier now, not in 10 years from now, as per the conditionof approval for the remodel of 34 Poplar.

I don't believe the side setback between 36 Poplar and the house at 34 Poplar is 15'.Their house is sited at an angle on their lot and the house no overhang as the drawingssuggest. Their dimensions need to be verified as does the side boundary line.

The plan disclaimers state these plans are not in detail and not suitable for permits. Thatis indeed true; they are not accurate in many respects and, in fact, distort the actual sizeof existing and proposed improvements. Please see 2 photos attached which will showyou just how close the surrounding properties are.

The proposed gas firepits are a fire hazard

The small outbuilding on my property at 36 Poplar which their plans describe as a shedis not a shed; it is a laundry/sewing room rebuilt several years ago with permits.

The proposed pool/spa is unacceptably close to the side boundary and on that basisalone, I object to the granting of a variance. Again, the surrounding properties, mineincluded, are far too close in proximity to one another to accommodate such an amenity

without unfairly robbing the peace and enjoyment of the surrounding properties. A pool,firepits, even the outdoor kitchen do not qualify as necessary or essential to justify thegranting of a variance as the mandatory findings require.

Ann Morrissey

4 properties. Taken from 36 Poplar. White house is 34 Poplar

34 Poplar (white house)taken from 36 Poplar. 3 windows at 34 Poplar overlooking 36Poplar. Plant materials need to be tall enough to serve as privacy barrier. Shougars'landscape architecht agreed but plans do not reflect his agreement. Note: windows,skylights and chimney flue were not part of initial 34 Poplar remodel approval.

From:To:Subject:Date:

Sue Tavlor LAST NAME

Matthew WeintraubProposal at 34 Popular, Ross

Tuesday, JulV 14,2020 6:06:56 PM

Today, July 6, 2O2O I received a "courtesy notice of public hearing" for the above-mentioned property. Therefore the hearing is less than two weeks away? I live at 25Redwood Drive, two houses away from the property, and would appreciate yourdistributing this late latter to the ADR.

I object to a pool for the following reasons:

N oise. For example, Across the street (18 Redwood Dr) is a pool that is extremelynoisy, late at night and during the day. The owners of 18 Redwood Dr. put theirhouse on airbnb and those people also have no regard for the neighborhood. Partiesgo on late into the night.

Parking. The party goers crowd the street. The Shougers have a one car garage thatthey do not use for parking, but park in front of the garage with one car. Other car isin the street..

Flood Zone. We are in a flood zone and having ground that does not absorb water isnot helpful.

Our quiet neighborhood would be impacted with more noise (we already have thenoise from 18 Redwood Dr), and possibly rental with airbnb? More cars in theneighborhood and no help with flooding.Sincerely.Sue and Ken Dale

From:To:Subject:Date:

dickbobo

ADRGroup

Pool, spa, kitchen, etc. at 34 Poplar Avenue

Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:37:58 PM

A pool and other elements proposed by the Shougers at 34 Poplar Avenue wouldn't be much ofa problem for me,

but I'd pity poor Barbara Cately (19 Redwood Drive) if they put in a pool.

Our experience with a pool has been with Mike and Lisa Gorham family's pool (18 Redwood Drive). Their pool isat the rear of their lot, and -120' from my house.

When their girls were younger, they'd have 6-8 or more girls back there yelling and screaming, which is what that

age does when they're ages l0-12. Since we mostly live in the back part of our house, with the family room

downstairs, and the bedroom upstairs, we heard everything. We found it to be a bit annoying, but just accepted it.

However, Cate Babcock ( l4 Redwood Drive) found the noise caused her problems with her vertigo.

I realize that the Shougers don't have teenage children, but friends there for party can bring them. That's currentlythe case with the Gorhams when they have parlies with several families who have young children, as the noise

sometimes gets a bit loud.

My principle concern about the proposed pool is that it would be alongside Barbara Gately's front room, kitchen,

and ground floor bedroom, all ofwhich are along the wall adjacent to the Shouger property. From Barbara's

standpoint, that's a terrible place to locate a pool.

I'm pretty sure that having a pool that close to Barbara's house would certainly negatively affect her property'svalue.

Going back to the Gorham's pool as an example, if their house were at the back of their lot, and they wanted to put a

pool next to our house, we would have strenuously objected to it. This example parallels the problem with a pool

being proposed right alongside Barbara Gately's house.

It's important to also look ahead as to what the situation might be. I've lived at l6 Redwood Drive for over 40 years,

and during that time, the Shougers are the 6th family that has lived in their house. It's thus a possibility that within a

couple years, another family with two or three young teenagers would live there, and the dynamics of living next to

them would change greatly as they had their young friends over for pool parties.

Dick Bobo

l6 Redwood DriveMobile: 415'722-3214

From:To:Subject:Date;

Charlotte Levin

Matthew Weintraub34 Poplar Avenue

Tuesday, JulV t4,2020 9:58:36 PM

My name is Charlotte Levin and I am the ownel'o138 Poplar Avenue, Ross, CA.

I am writing in regard to the Planning Design I received in the mail today. I understand from several of myneighbors that the notice postmarked 7/10 San Francisco arrived in their mailboxes on Monday. Because of Covidl9 , I only go to the Post Office every other day, and it was only today that I received the notice. Because the noticecame so late, I was unable to review the Project Plans of34 Poplar Avenue. Fortunately, several ofour neighborsinformed my husband and me of the Project Plans and we were able to review them.

Following are some of our main concems:

1) "medium low density": Medium low density is not an accurate description of this area of Ross. Medium tohigh density would be a more accurate description.

2) swimming pool: We oppose the installation of a pool because its close proximity to surrounding neighborswould negatively impact our quality of life.

3) fire pit: We oppose the construction ofa fire pit because ofthe severe fire danger in the area.

Thank you for your consideration ofour main concerns.

Respectfully,

Charlotte Levin38 Poplar AvenueP.O. Box 631

Ross, CA 94957

To:From:

Subject:Date:

Lisa Gorham

ADRGrouo

Shouger pool proposal

Wednesday, July 15,2020 2:40:30 PM

> To the town of Ross,> We live across the street from the Shouger's at I 8 Redwood. We are thrilled to see young> Families moving on to our street. We lully support their desire to put a pool in their yard. We love to hear kids &families playing outside and enjoying their yards. It's very important that we keep young families wanting to moveto our town. I know some ofthe older neighbors do not like change or any noise what so ever (even kids talking inthe yard at lpm on a Sunday)> I know Ross is getting a reputation of the "older" population dictating what is allowed. I hear over & over thatfamilies do not move to our town because of it. I think it's important for the town to allow families to utilize theiryards how they see fil. We have a pool and our property would not be the same with out it. tt is only used for about3-4 months out ofthe year. It is never used daily. The amount ofnoise from a pool isjust not a big deal. It soundslike happiness, joy & fun. Why shouldn't we all be able to have that?

LISAGorhamI 8 Redwood Dr

Borboro L. GATELYAilORNEY AT LnwP. O. Box 1772

Ross, CRLrronNrn 94957

(41s) 464-7874 borbgotely@gmoil.com

luly 1,5,2020

Matthew Weintraub, PlannerPlanning DivisionTown of Ross3L Sir Francis Drake Blvd.Ross, CA 94957

luly 21,2020 Advisory Design Review Meeting re Shougar Residence

[34 Poplar Avenue) Application for Approval to Construct Pool/Spa

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Advisory Design Review Members

I have lived at 19 Redwood Drive, the property directly contiguous to theShougars' proposed pool/spa, for almost 40 years. During that time, I have neveropposed my neighbors' plans to improve their property. When Cassie and f effShougar recently sent me their design plans for developing the lot next to mine,however, I explained that I could not support the installation of a pool that wasapproximately three feet from my living room, kitchen and bedroom. The Shougarsoffered to propose alternative plans but it appears that the original plans are thosepresently before the Advisory Design Review tADR) members. Given theconfiguration of their lot, I do not see a sustainable alternative in any event.

As the members undoubtedly know, Redwood Drive is a community ofhouses on generally undersized lots that are unusually close to their neighbors.Those of us who have lived here for many years treasure the intimacy and sense ofcommunity that this historical anomaly invites. It nevertheless should be anessential consideration when a landscaping project with potentially profoundimplications is proposed. To make the poinf I invite the ADR members to look at theShougars' Slide 2. It clearly depicts the two houses bordering the southern boundaryof their property-my house on the left and Ann Morrisey's house on the right, Thewire fence depicted on Slide 2 is just two feet from our houses. The Shougars' Slide3 is a drawing of the proposed pool, which runs almost the entire length of myhouse, and is located about a foot away on the other side of the wire fence. I am notaware of another lot in the neighborhood where the "backyard" butts up against ahouse rather than another backyard-a circumstance that Ieads to the currentfriction between the interests of our respective properties.

Re

In order to construct the pool, the Shougars would require a variance. Iunderstand that it is not the province of the ADR to determine whether or not theproposed plan meets the requirements needed for a variance. But it is impossible toevaluate these plans in a vacuum and, if the pool project seems unlikely to meetthose requirements, I believe the members should look at the plans with a morecritical eye, I therefore offer a brief analysis of the criteria for a variance.

Under the Ross Municipal Code, a variance will only be granted if fourfindings can be made, First, the applicant must establish that "specialcircumstances . . . deprive[] the property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiesin the vicinity." The only pool in the vicinity that I am aware of (with the exceptionof two very old, unused structures) is across the street from the Shougars, at 18Redwood Drive, and is located in the far rear of that substantial lot where the closesthouse is approximately \20 feet away-unlike the 3-foot "buffer" being proposedhere. As Dick Bobo, my neighbo r at 16 Redwood Drive, pointed out in his letter tothe members, even the 120-foot distancing has not prevented pool-related noisethat detracts from the enjoyment of his property.

Second, the variance must be necessary to preserve "substantial propertyrights." As far as I know, there is no inherent "right" to construct a pool on one'sproperty. As stated, I am not aware of any pools [other than the one at 18 RedwoodDrive) in the vicinity, possibly because there has been a general recognition of theintimate character of this neighborhood.

Third, it must be shown that the granting of a variance "would not bedetrimental to the public or injurious to other property in the area." It does nottake an expert to conclude that the installation of a pool approximately three feetfrom my living room, kitchen and bedroom would be "injurious" to my property as itwould negatively affect the enjoyment of my property. Furthermore, I haveconsulted with two real estate agents who confirm that the proposed pool/spawould also negatively affect my property's value, I amTL years old. My house is notonly my home but is a substantial investment that I look to protect and grow.

Fourth, the applicant must show that the granting of a variance would notrepresent a "special privilege" inconsistent with the limitations upon otherproperties in the area. I do not believe that the Shougars could overcome this, or anyof the other three requirements needed to obtain a variance.

I maintain a friendly relationship with the Shougars and I do not offer thesecomments in a personally negative way. Indeed, I welcome the Shougars as newneighbors and do not take specific issue with any of their proposed landscaping butI cannot responsibly sign off on the pool.

Sincerely,

/s/Barbara L. Gately

Matthew Weintraub

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Alan Sandler <alan@afsf.org >

Friday, July 17,2020 2:56 PM

ADRGroup; Matthew Weintrau b

Comment re: 34 Poplar Avenue proposal

Dear ADR: My husband Alan Sandler and I would like to put forward a few points of commentary and observation withregardtotheproposedexpansionofthepropertyat34Poplar-which propertyextendstoRedwood.Weliveat2l"Redwood, and have lived there happily since 1996. I have been a Ross resident for approximately 50+ years. I will notrepeat the comments of fact and concern expressed by virtually all in our small and close neighborhood; most have beenstated clearly, and most reflect our own opinions.

Density: The properties as viewed from both Poplar and Redwood are both quite close together and, on Redwood in therather limited Ross residential district recently expanding in build out, in my opinion undermining the very spirit, beautyand livability of the neighborhood so highly prized. lncreasing build out with attendant issues of parking, traffic on ourcrowned road, and sustainable exponential permanent and varying population presents considerations based oncontextual design, permitting, environmental, and neighborly considerations.

Noise: Without casting aspersions or stones, it is an absolute fact that over the past severalyears of property turnover,noise pollution has impacted our relatively, long-lived quiet street - still a "walk of choice" for many outside our fewblocks who enjoy the vegetation, bird song, pedestrian and family, and even pet- friendly feeling. The fact of theincreasing frequency and decibel levelof outdoor amplified music, car idling, patio parties is quite often without regardfor others in the community. lt is not correct that this is confined to only a few months, days or times of day. This has

neither to do with the sounds of happy children - look at the wonderful increase in young families in our areas, theattraction of our school and Commons, and the considerations of aunts, uncles, grandparents...as well as parents andfriends of families on the street who welcome and enjoy children and youth of all ages. The addition of an intrusivelylarge, pool, patio, outdoor entertainment area so prominently cited on Redwood and contiguous to several propertiesseems out of scheme with principles of sensitive design and neighborhood context.

Parking: There are already two newer residents, across from one another, on Redwood with as many as 6-8 personalvehicles parked at any time on the street - before adding to family and company parking or parking taken by Ross Schoolparents, enjoyed by young bikers, or boarders, or families walking children, dogs, with older family members. Theimagined strain on not just parking but traffic raises serious potential unintended consequences.

Flood Zone: The seeming need to dig personal swimming pools in a designated flood plain and along creeks access on a

street with challenged gutter and sewer drainage implies challenges down the road should there be periods of brief butsevere or prolonged rain - this in front of two properties across the street from one another - neither of which has

exhibited past interest in cleaning out gutters in front of their properties during such times, but has moved cars in frontof other, explaining "it's a public street".

Fire pit: With Cal Fire and PG&E already reviewing properties and the neighborhood auditing and cautioning about firedanger, the addition of spa-like fire pits suggest adding to that concern and certainly inviting a notion of increasedentertaining, noise and likely fire and cooking odor - all of which I think would detract from the environment of thecommunity.

A last and, I confess very personal note - having begun by wanting to avoid targeted, labeled or divisive observation andcomment. As so directly pointed out by one member of our neighborhood - I suppose I and my husband fall into thecategory of "old". Certainly by Covid at-risk guidelines. ls this meant to be a pejorative, or simply an immature andunkind comment? ln fact, perhaps some of us having grown up in the community created a legacy for those to follow

1

and enjoy. I found the pointed comments laughable at best, insuliing in the extreme. Put forward by a neighbor forwhom we have felt no ill will, have never complained to or about, but have never found the least bit intentional norengaging in attempts to connect with the majority on our small and special street. I have taken this personally and treatit as unfair and offensive on a personal level.

Regards,

Laura London Sandler

Laura London & Alan Sandler2L Redwood DriveRoss, CA 94957

2

Matthew Weintraub

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

Ann Morrissey <annmorrissey@comcast.net>

Sunday, July 19, 2020 6:48 PM

Matthew WeintraubPatrick StreeterFwd:34 Poplar

Matthew and Patrick,

Would you kindly forward to the members of the ADR Group. I believe l'm within the 48-hour requirement to submit

Thank you,

AnnAnn Morrissey36 Poplar Ave.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ann Morrissey <annmorrissev@comcast.net>Subject: 34 PoplarDate: July 19,2020 at6:26.49 PM PDTTo: Jeff shouger <ieff.shouqer@qmai >Cc: Brad Eigsti <brad@imprintsqardens.com>

Jeff,

l've been promised l'd receive the boundary survey between our side boundary but it has never beenreceived. I don't believe the existing fence is on the boundary, I believe it is mine and doesn't constitutethe boundary. Your new fence needs to be on the boundary or on your property. The boundary needs tobe determined by a licensed surveyor and marked.

Also need to receive in written form your assurance and your plans amended to indicate the trees used

to serve as the privacy screen at your side windows will be tall enough to provide the needed privacy.

Would you send before the hearing on Tuesday, July 21, so we may report at the hearing these itemshave been received.

Thank you,

AnnAnn Morrissey

1

Jeff and Cassie Shouger

P. O. Box 1206

Ross, CRlrroRNtA 94957

550-339-0717 ieff.shouger@ema il.com

cassieshoueer@smail.com

July 19, 2020

Matthew Weintraub, PlannerPlanning DivisionTown of Ross

31Sir Francis Drake Blvd.Ross, CA 94957

Re: July 2L,2O2O, Advisory Design Review Meeting re Shouger Residence(34 Poplar Avenue) Application for Approval to Construct Pool/Spa

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Advisory Design Review Members:

We moved to Ross in August of 20L9. After months of searching for the perfect home inthe perfect neighborhood in a great school district, we fellin love with the Ghilotti's home on 34 Poplar Avenue. Thishome had multiple offers. The Ghilotti's deliberately choseus (despite not being the highest bidder) because theywanted a young(ishl family to enjoy all that thisneighborhood has to offer. We have an l8-month-old boyand we just recently found out we have another one theway. R

The neighborhood is the home to restaurants, and anumber of other quaint shops and small businessese Thesebusinesses are all places where kids and families congregateon weekdays and weekends. Being close to the school anddowntown is great! lt's lively with people milling around theneighborhood, and kids laughing and playing. The numberof kids in the neighborhood appears to be growing and we hope that continues

After all, the community and proximity to the Ross School are what drew us to Ross andthis house in particular.

T

The global pandemic has required all of us to quarantine, social distance, stay home. Weboth work from home and all signs are this will be the case for a long period of time. lfwe have to be isolated, Ross is a great place to be. Given the substantial increase intime spent at home, people are looking to invest more creating an oasis in their veryown backyard.

ln this COVID world where there is limited availability to community pools or gyms, wethink having our own pool is important. Teaching our children to swim, having an outletfor exercise and enjoyment is something we look forward to in our home for the longterm. ln addition to the benefits a pool has for our kids it is also important for us as

working adults to have a place to recharge and refresh as the pandemic takes a mentaltoll on all of us.

You can see from the pictures we have a baby pool and the kids love to splash and play.To us, the sound of children laughing and playing is hard to imagine being aneighborhood disturbance. Besides, a pool is only used a few months of the year

ln order to construct the pool, we require a variance.We understand that it is not the province of the ADR

to determine whether or not the proposed plan

meets the requirements needed for a variance. Toassess our need we offer some brief thoughts aroundthe criteria for a variance.

Under the Ross Municipal Code, a variance will onlybe granted if four findings can be made. First, theapplicant must establish that "special circumstances. . . deprive[] the ilroperty of privileges enjoyed byother properties in the vicinity." There are 7 pools inthe vicinity based on the documents we providedand many others throughout Redwood drive and theneighborhood. lt would be unfair and deprive us ofthe privileges enjoyed by other properties if we are

not allowed to make the improvements we want to make. None of the houses in thearea have large, if any setbacks, so to require that we implement setbacks when both ofour neighbor's houses are essentially on the property line feels punitive.

Second, the variance must be necessary to preserve "substantial propertyrights." As far as I know, there is nothing that is codified by law that would take awaysomeone's "right" to construct a pool on one's property. Currently, we have a babypool in ouryard, bouncy house and it doesn't seem to be an issue with regard to anyonein the neighborhood. Further, it doesn't detract from property values or creates unduenoise. l'm not certain that a pool that measures 10' by 34' is going to make that muchof a difference. 18 Redwood Drive, 12 Redwood Drive, and 8 Redwood Drive all havepools. There are multiple other houses on Redwood, Poplar, and Bridge streetswithpools and I count 7 pools in the documents we submitted.

2

Third, it must be shown thatthe grantingof a variance "would not bedetrimental to the public or injurious to other property in the area." The material valueof a property is driven by the structure on the property, which includes the squarefootage, the floorplan, bathroom upgrades, and kitchen upgrades. A pool does not setthe valuation of a home and it clearly does not set the valuation of the neighboringhomes. A pool does not negatively affect the enjoyment of a neighbor's property orcause undue noise. I have consulted with multiple realestate agents with regard to thesituation and all believe the value of the properties will not be materially affected.Further, the value of the properties adjacent to 34 Poplar has been noted to requiresignificant upgrades which would be a primary driver of enhancing value.

Fourth, the applicant must show that the granting of a variance would notrepresent a "special privilege" inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties inthe area. Multiple properties in Ross have been provided variances. ltfeels like there isno setback at the adjacent properties. As a result, we would like to have a setbackvariance that is within the l-5' however not a variance as large as our neighbors which isless than l-' from the property line.

While we have maintained a friendly relationship with our neighbors we do feel that theneighbors are unfairly ganging upon us and it is very unwelcoming for new families withchildren. We are quite frankly shocked at the response to something we want to do onour private property. We thought that by moving to a home this close to the RossSchool surely the neighborhood would be kid-friendly. What we are talking about is afamily swimming in a pool for a couple of hours on the weekends during the summer.

We're also unclear as to how residents that don't even live near us are justifiably able toobject to our proposed project. We did seek out to discuss the pool early on with ouradjacent neighbor and she said she was supportive. We did not think to discuss ourproject with people that live multiple houses down the street as it would not impacttheir lives in the least.

We have offered to discuss alternative plans and are open to considering. The backyardis a pretty simple construct and whether we put a pool LO' or 12' from the property linethe concern for noise and property value don't change. ln fact, the noise should not beconsidered an issue as we already have kids outside playing in a pool. And in terms ofproperty value, if there are genuine concerns from our neighbors there are many otherareas to focus on outside of a neighbors pool.

Sincerely,

/slJeff and Cassie Shouger

3

To:Cc;

Froml

Subject:

Sue Taylor LAST NAME

Matthew Weintraub; Barbara Gately

Bobo Dick and Ann; Ann Morrissev; Charlotte Levin; Cate and Jeff Babcock; l4aIgarcLErcneE; Patrick StreeterRE: New hearing on the Shouger application for a pool

Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:40:L2 AMDate:

Dear Mr. Weintraub and ADR members:

I have been a resident at 25 Redwood Drive (2 houses away from the proposed pool) for over 40 years. I object toany pool being constructed on the property. My main objection is that we are in a flood zone and having anotherlarge body of water so close to all our homes is not helpful in a flood. The other objection is that the pool is simplytoo close to the property line of the Kemp property, as well as too close to Redwood Drive street. Ross has usuallyhonored the set-back laws that the City proposed for property owners. This proposed pool should be no exception.The pool would be an obnoxious invasion of privacy lor the Kemp property, where the kitchen and bedroom are

directly impacted.Such a pool would invade the total intimacy (as Ms. Kemp stated) of the whole neighborhood on Redwood Drivewith screaming people, etc. 'lhe lot is simply too small and too open for any size pool.Thank you,Sincerely Sue Johnson and Kenneth Dale

FromiTo:Subject:Date:

Charlotte Levin

Matthew WeintraubNew hearing on the Shouger pool application 34 Poplar AvenueTuesday, August 11, 2020 10:51:12 AM

Dear Mr Weintraub,My name is Charlotte Levin and I am the homeowner of 38 Poplar Avenue since 1975. I amwriting in regard to the new proposed application for a pool and new landscaping at 34 PoplarAvenue. (lt is very distressing that I have not yet received the notification about the proposaland only leamed of it yesterday from my neighbors. This late notification occurred in theShouger's original application.)I vehemently oppose this new application for the reasons I expressed in my objections to theoriginal application! Moving the pool several feet away from Barbara Gately's property doesnot mitigate the negative impact on her property nor does a 7 foot fence on the property line!In fact, the new landscaping shows the tree limbs growing onto her property.A pool at 34 Poplar Avenue not only negatively affects Barbara Gately's quality of life butthe surrounding neighbors as well.

Thank you,Charlotte Levin38 Poplar AvenueP.O. Box 631Ross, CA 94957

From:To:Subject:Date:Attachmentsr

Barbara Gatelv

ADRGroup; Matthew WeintraubComments on the Shougers" reapplication for a pool, August 18 ADR HearingTuesday, August 11, 2020 4:29:48PM2020-08-11 Letter to Ross ADR.doc<2020-07-15 Letter to Ross ADR.doc(

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Members of the Advisory Design Review Group,

You may recall that I am the neighbor whose house is next to the Shougers and, therefore, the party most directlyimpacted by their revised application. In response to the notice that the Shougers have submitted a secondapplication for the construction of a pool on their property, I attach my August 1 I , 2020 letter. For convenience, Ialso attach a copy of my July I 5, 2020 letter as I believe the points there might help guide the ADR's hearing in thismatter. Thank you for your hard work,

Barbara Gatelv

Borboro L. GATELYATToRNey AT LAW

P. O. Box 1772Ross, CRLrronNrR 94957

(4ts) 464-7874 borbgotely@gmoil.com

August lL,2020

Matthew Weintraub, PlannerPlanning DivisionTown of Ross31- Sir Francis Drake Blvd.Ross, CA 94957

August L8,2020 ADR Meeting re Shouger's RenewedApplication for Approval to Construct Pool/Spa

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Advisory Design Review Members

First, I want to thank you, Mr, Weintraub, for your incredibly rapid andthorough response to the deluge of emaiis following news that the Shougers wereseeking to revive their bid to construct a pool on their property. Since the ADRmembers had so convincingly denied the Shougers' initial application, I hope youcan understand the neighborhood's rush for explanations, Now that I have had anopportunity to absorb the procedural posture of the renewed bid, I have a numberof observations. For the sake of convenience, and in order to avoid duplication, I

attach a copy of my f uly 15, 2020 corcespondence which details the barricades I

believe the Shougers will continue to face in attempting to secure a variance.

Patrick Streeter, in response to a neighbor's phone call, explained the town'spost-ADR hearing policy as follows: "lt is not uncommon for a project to be redesignedafter a design review meeting. If the changes are substantial enough or if the applicantrequests additional review from ADR members, we hold a follow-up hearing." As Iunderstand it, the revised application reflects three changes: first, the setback for thesouthern boundary of the pool has been increased from five to ten feet (l believe it ismore accurate to say from three to eight feet); second, the spa has been switched from thesouth to the north side of the pool; and the size of the privacy screening hedge on thesouthem property line was increased. Viewed in the context of the July 22,2020 ADRdiscussions, the revised plan reflects no substantive, let alone "substantial," changes.

The four ADR members who voted against the Shougers' original applicationmade it plain that the narrow lot simply did not support the addition of a pool. Though anumber of board members shared my alarm that the original plans placed the pool withinthree feet of my bedroom and living room, no one suggested that pushing the southem

Re

border of the pool back another five feet would resolve their baseline concerns with theplan. The five-foot extension is best viewed in the context of our six-foot socialdistancing lives-a very narrow space as we all know too well. At best, two ADAmembers suggested that the Shougers could explore the possibility of situating a smallpool or spa along the northern boundary of the property. Those suggestions promptedanother member to caution that the "sound barrier wall" between the Shougers' propertyand the office building would end up amplifting the pool noise-an anomalous resultthat I have to assume eliminated the northern boundary as an option.

The switch in the placement of the spa was in apparent response to one ofthe member's observations that the Shougers' plan aggravated the alreadyegregious placement of the pool so close to my home by placing the spa right next tomy bedroom. I scarcely think the Shougers can offer this "change" as anything butthe correction of a thoughtless plan in the first instance, And, finally, the increase inthe size of the privacy hedge is merely dressing in the context of the underlyingissues the Shougers' renewed bid provokes, It is certainly not a "substantial change"warranting a rehearing that needlessly impinges on the time of so many-includingthe Town of Ross employees, members of the ADR and the many neighbors who areinvested in halting this application and maintaining the intimate character of thisneighborhood.

I have tried hard to remain courteous throughout this process as I firmlybelieve that the shougers have a statutory right to be heard. And they were. I amless sanguine now that I have had to jettison a day of deadlines at work in order tooppose the Shougers' quest to be heard a second time, when the underlying reasonfor the first determination was that the narrow lot does not support a pool. I believethat one of the goals of our legal system is to provide dueling parties a level ofrepose once they have had an opportunity to be heard. If the members were to denythe revised application, what would prevent a third application based upon the poolboundaries moving north another five feet? The size of the lot or its shape cannot bechanged. Enough,

On a very personal level, this dispute has been very emotionally taxing forme. I lost my husband a few years ago, and I am therefore handling many issues forthe first time on my own, I consider my home my sanctuary and, as I mentionedbefore, a substantial investment, The proposed pool threatens both. As one of myneighbors observed, if the Shougers were so interested in a home with a pool andentertainment area, why didn't they buy one with those features already in place?Their attempts to shoehorn their vision into a completely disparate neighborhoodcontext are incongruous, and do not warrant a reversal of the Board's earlier action,

Sincerely,

/s/Barbara L. Gately

BorbOro L. GATELYATTORNEY AT LAW

P. O. Box 1772

Ross, CnlrronNrR 94957

(4ts) 464-7874 borbgotely@gmoil.com

luly 15,2020

Matthew Weintraub, PlannerPlanning DivisionTown of Ross31 Sir Francis Drake Blvd,Ross, CA 94957

luly 21,2020 Advisory Design Review Meeting re Shougar Residence

[34 Poplar Avenue) Application for Approval to Construct Pool/Spa

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Advisory Design Review Members:

I have lived at L9 Redwood Drive, the property directly contiguous to theShougars' proposed pool/spa, for almost 40 years. During that time, I have neveropposed my neighbors'plans to improve their property. When Cassie and feffShougar recently sent me their design plans for developing the lot next to mine,however, I explained that I could not support the installation of a pool that wasapproximately three feet from my living room, kitchen and bedroom. The Shougarsoffered to propose alternative plans but it appears that the original plans are thosepresently before the Advisory Design Review (ADRI members. Given theconfiguration of their lot, I do not see a sustainable alternative in any event.

As the members undoubtedly know, Redwood Drive is a community ofhouses on generally undersized lots that are unusually close to their neighbors.Those of us who have lived here for many years treasure the intimacy and sense ofcommunity that this historical anomaly invites, It nevertheless should be anessential consid.eration when a landscaping project with potentially profoundimplications is proposed. To make the point I invite the ADR members to look at theShougars' Slide 2. It clearly depicts the two houses bordering the southern boundaryof their property-my house on the left and Ann Morrisey's house on the right. Thewire fence depicted on Slide 2 is just two feet from our houses. The Shougars' Slide3 is a drawing of the proposed pool, which runs almost the entire length of myhouse, and is located about a foot away on the other side of the wire fence, I am notaware of another lot in the neighborhood where the "backyard" butts up against ahouse rather than another backyard-a circumstance that leads to the currentfriction between the interests of our respective properties,

Re

In order to construct the pool, the Shougars would require a variance. Iunderstand that it is not the province of the ADR to determine whether or not theproposed plan meets the requirements needed for a variance. But it is impossible toevaluate these plans in a vacuum and, if the pool project seems unlikely to meetthose requirements, I believe the members should look at the plans with a morecritical eye. I therefore offer a brief analysis of the criteria for a variance.

Under the Ross Municipal Code, a variance will only be granted if fourfindings can be made. First, the applicant must establish that "specialcircumstances . . . deprive[] the property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiesin the vicinity," The only pool in the vicinity that I am aware of (with the exceptionof Wo very old, unused structures) is across the street from the Shougars, at 1BRedwood Drive, and is located in the far rear of that substantial lot where the closesthouse is approximately L20 feet away-unlike the 3-foot "buffer" being proposedhere. As Dick Bobo, my neighbo r at 16 Redwood Drive, pointed out in his letter tothe members, even the 120-foot distancing has not prevented pool-related noisethat detracts from the enjoyment of his property.

Second, the variance must be necessary to preserve "substantial propertyrights." As far as I know, there is no inherent "right" to construct a pool on one'sproperty. As stated, I am not aware of any pools [other than the one at 18 RedwoodDrive) in the vicinity, possibly because there has been a general recognition of theintimate character of this neighborhood.

Third, it must be shown that the granting of a variance "would not bedetrimental to the public or iniurious to other property in the area." It does nottake an expert to conclude that the installation of a pool approximately three feetfrom my living room, kitchen and bedroom would be "injurious" to my property as itwould negatively affect the enjoyment of my property. Furthermore, I haveconsulted with two real estate agents who confirm that the proposed pool/spawould also negatively affect my property's value. I am 7 L years old, My house is notonly my home but is a substantial investment that I look to protect and grow,

Fourth, the applicant must show that the granting of a variance would notrepresent a "special privilege" inconsistent with the limitations upon otherproperties in the area. I do not believe that the Shougars could overcome this, or anyof the other three requirements needed to obtain a variance.

I maintain a friendly relationship with the Shougars and I do not offer thesecomments in a personally negative way. Indeed, I welcome the Shougars as newneighbors and do not take specific issue with any of their proposed landscaping butI cannot responsibly sign off on the pool,

Sincerely,

/s/Barbara L. Gately

FromiTo:Subject:Date:

Cate Babcock

Matthew WeintraubProposed construction at 34 Poplar Ave

Tuesday, August 11, 2020 4:58:14 PM

As neighbors of the residents at 34 Poplar Ave. we oppose the proposed construction. Theextensive project, particularly the pool, will either severely impact the next residence or, ifmoved closer to Redwood Drive, will create more noise for the neighborhood. The issues ofsetbacks and parking for guests are also salient variables we hope you will consider in yourdecision.

Sincerely,Jeff and Catherine Babcock14 Redwood Dr, Ross, CA94957

FromTo:Cc:

Jeff Babcock

Matthew WeintraubCate Babcock

Shouger"s Renewed Application

Tuesday, August 11, 2020 5:32:18 PM

Subject:Datei

Dear Mr. Weintraud

After reviewing the Shouger's proposed changes to their Pool/Spa ADR application, I do not see anymaterial improvements which transform this request into a viable project. By shifting thedimensions by a few feet, it does not remedy the overarching issue of fitting the pool/spa into anarrow lot which doesn't come close to addressing the setback requirements. I remain opposed tothis application.

Jeff BabcockSenior Partner

STRATMORGROUP

D 41 5-925-9883M 41 5-902-3086www.stratmorgloup.com

From:To:

Date:Subject:

dickboboMatthew Weintraub; ADRGroup

Re-do of Shouger"s proposal for pool, entertainment center, etc. - 34 popular AveTuesday, August 11, 2020 8:58:37 PM

I'm unsure of the protocol for who gets what, so to cover the bases I'm sending it to bothMatthew Weintraub and the ADR Group which may end up with some duplication down theline for some people.

Matthew warrants kudos for his very responsive and helpful responses to questions to do withthis re-do project.

It was quite a surprise to me and other neighbors to learn that the Shougers are proposinganother design for putting a pool in their property, especially after it was turned down 4-1during the previous ADR meeting.

By the time the previous ADR discussion ended, it seemed the general consensus among mostof the ADR members was that placing the pool anywhere on that rear property wouldn'teliminate the problems which had been discussed. Now they want to move the pool so it's l0'to the north of the property line, apparently thinking that will overcome previous objections.

The comment I was going to make during that meeting was the problem of sound bouncing offthe l0' wall on the north side of the property, but then a member brought that up, so I didn'taddress it.

Note that the noise reflected by the wall, and bouncing toward Barbara Gately's house wouldbe added to the noise also coming directly to her home from the activity in the pool. You mayrecallthat when they put the sound walls up along US-101 thru San Rafael, people to the eastof the road became upset because the sound was then being bounced to them. So, wallsreflecting sound can be a problem in many situations, including here.

Added to it being a small lot, having the 10' concrete block wall, the hardscape will help intransmitting sound everywhere. Also, having the large entertainment center and accompanyingpartying on Redwood Drive will impact all the nearby neighbors with their parties. It would bethe only property on Redwood Drive with an entertainment center on the street, whereas allthe others are behind the houses, away from the street.

Ann and I enjoyed our property on a narrow lot among others here because we ended upconversing across the fences with neighbors fairly regularly, which I still do. However, thesesmall lots don't lend themselves to being appropriate for some of the benefits of being onlarger lots where people can easily have pools, privacy, etc.

Reiterating from my July 14 email, if the Gorham house was located at the rear of theirproperty, and they wanted to put a pool in by our house, we would have fought that tooth andnail.

It's my hope that y'all again will not approve the pool on the narrow property, which ifapproved, among other things would greatly impact Barbara Gately's quality of life, as well asthe value of her property.

Sincerely,

Dick Bobo16 Redwood Drive

My email for the previous ADR meeting.

From:dickbobo<dickbobo@comcast >Date: July 14,2020 at 9:37:33 PM PDTTo: ADRGroup@townofross.orgSubject: Poolo spa, kitchen, etc. at 34 Poplar Avenue

A pool and other elements proposed by the Shougers at 34 Poplar Avenue wouldn't be muchof a problem for me, but I'd pity poor Barbara Gately (19 Redwood Drive) if they put in apool.

Our experience with a pool has been with Mike and Lisa Gorham family's pool (18 RedwoodDrive). Their pool is at the rear of their lot, and -120'from my house.

when their girls were younger, they'd have 6-8 or more girls back there yelling andscreaming, which is what that age does when they're ages l0- 12. Since we mostly live in theback part of our house, with the family room downstairs, and the bedroom upstairs, we heardeverything. We found it to be a bit annoying, but just accepted it. However, Cate Babcock (14Redwood Drive) found the noise caused her problems with her vertigo.

I realizethat the Shougers don't have teenage children, but friends there for party can bringthem. That's currently the case with the Gorhams when they have parties with several familieswho have young children, as the noise sometimes gets a bit loud.

My principle concern about the proposed pool is that it would be alongside Barbara Gately'sfront room, kitchen, and ground floor bedroom, all of which are along the wall adjacent to theShouger property. From Barbara's standpoint, that's a terrible place to locate a pool.

I'm pretty sure that having a pool that close to Barbara's house would certainly negativelyaffect her property's value.

Going back to the Gorham's pool as an example, if their house were at the back of their lot,and they wanted to put a pool next to our house, we would have strenuously objected to it.This example parallels the problem with a pool being proposed right alongside BarbaraGately's house.

It's important to also look ahead as to what the situation might be. I've lived at 16 RedwoodDrive for over 40 years, and during that time, the Shougers are the 6th family that has lived intheir house. It's thus a possibility that within a couple years, another family with two or threeyoung teenagers would live there, and the dynamics of living next to them would changegreatly as they had their young friends over for pool parties.

Dick Bobol6 Redwood DriveMobile: 415-722-3214

From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:

Maroaret Francis

Matthew WeintraubDick Bobo; Barbara Gatelv; Sue Johnnson; clret@comcast.net; annmorrissev@comcast.net; Cate BabcockFeedback on Proposed Pool Design fot 34 Poplarl Schougar ResidenceTuesday, August 11, 2020 IL:07:12 AM

August 11,2020

Dear Mr. Weintraub, ADR Committee Members and Ross Town Council

My name is Margaret Francis and I am the owner of 20 Redwood Drive in Ross. I have ownedmy house here for 15 years, and my children attend Ross School. I love the Town, and myunique little neighborhood, which has fairly small houses and lots by Ross standards.

I think the Schougars as a family are a wonderful addition to our Town and neighborhood andwelcome new families like theirs to the neighborhood. I hope their time raising a family herewill be as good as mine has been. I love many of the design elements of the current plan suchas the green wall against the unsightly commercial wall on their north side and addition of anoverhead arbor for some shade, and the front yard fountain treatment.

And I wish I could support their desire for a pool on the lot at 34 Poplar, but I don't,because the proximity of the pool shown in the design, the noise it will generate and the likelytimes of its use would substantially interfere with the value, appearance, and quality of life forthe occupants of the house at l9 Redwood. Barbara Gately's letter to the Town is spot on andI support the points she makes in it.

If the houses were aligned such that the backyards matched up, instead of the front to backmismatch, so that the pool and entertainment area were on the Poplar side, I might feeldifferently about it. But the neighbor at 36 Poplar might not want a pool next to their frontdoor and living room also. The way the house is situated on this modest downtown lot justmakes it difficult to see how to accommodate their desire for a pool with enough setbacks toinsulate the residential neighbors from the sizable negative impact this would create.

I am very pro-property rights and have a odd little lot that I will likely someday need all ofyour support to do anything with, if I do anything other than let it gently subside and decay inplace. So it is uncomfortable to me to hold this opinion. But the spacing and setbacksbetween the lots don't support this design without material impact to 19 Redwood. I wouldinvite the members of the ADR/ Town Council to walk or drive by in advance of the reviewmeeting, to see how the plan as presented might look in situ.

Sincerely,

Margaret FrancisP.O. Box 64520 Redwood DriveRoss CA 94957

margaret francismobile 415 260 8476m argaretfranc is@gm ai l. com

Ann C. MorrisseyP.O. Box 142736 Poplar Ave.Ross, CA 94957415 686-6544

An nMorrissev@comcast. net

August 11,2020

Re: Shouger Residence at 34 Poplar Ave. Ross2nd Design Review Hearing scheduled on August 18,2020

Members of the Ross Advisory Design Review GroupRoss Town Planning Division

Dear Members of the ADR Group and the Ross Town Planning Division,

WE'RE BACK to review the Shougers' resubmittal for their 11 approvals before the RossAdvisory Design Review to "improve" their landscaping.

I am the Shougers' other neighbor directly impacted by the years of incrementaloverdevelopment of what is now the Shougers' property at 34 Poplar Avenue. Perhapseven more so as they added more and more to the property very often under the radarwithout neighbor knowledge or input and over the counter. l, too, started out being highlyadverse to passing judgment on what one's neighbors want to do on or with theirproperty. But where the line must be drawn is when your neighbor's actions will imposeupon or detract from your property rights and enjoyment of your property.

So here we are again, a sizeable group of thoughtful and sincere neighbors spendingtheir time and trying the best they can to honestly express why much of the Shougers'application is not an appropriate or a good fit for this dense little neighborhood ofdowntown Ross.

As the property owner of 36 Poplar, the next-door neighbor to 34 Poplar, for some 38years, I again reiterate my acceptance or opposition to each of the Shougers' requestedapprovals from the ADR Group and ultimately from the Ross Town Council.

First, I must point out their designer's drawings are not to scale and are not accurate. ltshould be a requirement that they are accurate and to scale. The back deck ofShougers's house as depicted in their drawing is much bigger than the exiting. There isno planting area between the back steps and the house as their drawings indicate. Theside setback, at least on their southern side between their house and mine at 36 Poplaris not correct. lt is off by at least 5'. They depict the existing fence to be on the sideboundary. lt is not. The survey which they recently produced was based on boundaryinformation compiled years ago (2016 and 2019) from a title report for insurancepurposes and just recorded recently. The survey is of the northerly line, not the southerlyline and states, "existing monuments and fence corner locations are not to scale toprovide clarity of their locations relative to the calculated boundary position." TheShougers' surveyor, Larry Stevens, has not been cooperative in answering questionsormarking boundary corners and their southern boundary.

I shall briefly go through the shougers' requested approvals as they appear in thecourtesy Notice of Public Hearing schedule for Tuesday, August 18,2020 with myapproval or objection:

New Pool/Spa: Object. Much too close to neighbor's property. Will deprive neighborsof enjoyment of their property. Will affect value of neighboring properties. Subjectproperty already overdeveloped. lnappropriate for this densely populated area of Ross.

Arbor Structure: No decision at this time

Outdoor Kitchen: No decision at this time

New Stone Patio and Fountain the in the Front Yard: Approve.

Replacing Existing Fences: Object. Existing fences don't belong to the Shougers. Theyare not on boundary line. The dimensions as represented on their plans are way off. lfthey wish to build new fencing they must build on their property. Conditions of approvalmust include stipulation that neighbors will not share in the cost of construction ormaintenance. Fence height must not block the light and privacy planting must be kepttrimmed amd not be allowed to grow higher than gutter height at 36 poplar.

Replace Patios: Approve provided they do not encroach on property of 36 poplar.

Replace Walkways: Approve provided they do not encroach on property of 36 Poplar

Replace Paving: Approve.

New Landscape Plantings: Approve provided it's within the correct setback of 34Poplar, neighbors are not looked to to share in cost and height of privacy plantings willnot exceed height of gutters at 36 Poplar to ensure uniform appearance, health of plantsand ample sunlight to 36 Poplar. Revising plans to plant larger privacy trees is muchappreciated.

Artificial Turf: Approveassuming artificial turf is an impervious landscape surface.

One more which isn't mentioned in the Notice but appears in the Shougers' drawingsare the Firepits. Object. This is such a fire hazard so close to the Shougers' house andmany of the neighors' houses so close to theirs.

Thank you Members of the ADR Group and the Ross Planning Division and the trulygreat group of neighbors in our area who have put so much time, effort and heart intothis application.

Sincerely,

Ann C. Morrissey

Matthew Weintraub

From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:

Barbara Gately < barbgately@gmail.com>Monday, August L7,2020 L0:07 AMADRGroup; Matthew Weintraub34 Poplar Project Review, August 18,2020 ADR Hearing

2020-08-17 Letter to ADR re fencing.docx

Dear Mr. Weintraub and ADR Group members,

I offer this additional submission to address the solid 7-foot fence the project proposes to install between ourproperties. As you will see, the excessive height of the fence, its solid design and its extreme proximity to my bedroomand living room windows would deprive my home of at least 50% of the limited light it currently gets. Many thanks foryour consideration of this additional issue.

Barbara Gately

1

Borboro L. GATELYATTONNEY AT LAW

P. O. Box 1772

Ross, CnLrroRNr x 94957

(4ts) 464-7874 borbgotely@gmoil.com

August !7,2020

Matthew Weintraub, PlannerPlanning DivisionTown of Ross

31 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.Ross, CA 94957

August L8,2O2O ADR Meeting re Shouger's RenewedApplication for Approval of Proposed Project at 34 Poplar

Dear Mr. Weintraub and Advisory Design Review Members

ln response to the Shougers' revised application, the August 14,2O2O Staff Reportrecommends that "the ADR Group discuss the merits of the project and provide a formalrecommendation to the Town Council regarding the merits of the project consistent with theDesign Review criteria and standards of RMC Section 18.41_.100."

Both the ADR Group and the majority of the neighbors, including me (at L9 Redwoodwhich abuts the Shougers' proposed entertainment center), have thus far focused on themerits of the pool. I have already shared my view that the Shougers' revised plan for the pool,which moves it five feet to the north, does not respond to the concerns voiced by 4 of the 5ADR members and virtually all of the neighbors. I will not revisit the issue other than to pointout that, in electing to submit the plan five feet closer to my house at the last hearing, JeffShouger observed that the alternative plan (the now revised plan five feet to the north) wouldnot make a "material difference" in the noise level. I agree.

On closer examination of the project as a whole, I realized that another of the designelements poses an equal, and related, peril for me-the proposalto install a solid 7-foot fenceon the boundary between our two properties. As a threshold observation, the applicantsappear to assume that the existing fences represent the boundary. Regardless of the form a

replacement fence, if any, might take, the applicants will need to provide surveyed proof of thetrue boundary location. I also join in Ann Morrissey's insistence that the Shougers assume thefull cost of installation and maintenance of any replacement fence.

Re

I have attached a number of photographs that I hope will graphically convey thedevastating consequences a solid 7-foot fence would impose on my property. I believe they willalso work to underscore how inappropriate the proposed pool is in the context of our cheek byjowl properties. The first photograph depicts the view out of my bedroom window without theshutters in place. I concede that the photograph argues in favor of a landscape redesign. Thesecond photograph is the simulated view showing that a full 50% of my bedroom windowwould be blocked from sunlight if a 7-foot fence were installed. I simulated the view by restinga 7-foot by 4-foot "foam core" against the existing fencing. The third photograph shows mybedroom window as it generally exists with shutters open only as far as privacy permits. TheBoard will see that I have to fight for every ounce of light I can extract from the immutablecircumstances. The fourth photograph is the current view of my living room window which,again, is sheltered by shutters in order to preserve some modicum of privacy. The fifthphotograph is the simulated view showing that over 50% of the picture window would beblocked from sunlight. Keep in mind that the existing fence across from my living room is onlytwo feet from my window and the existing fence across from my bedroom is one and a half feetfrom my window (which suggests that Ann Morrissey, the other contiguous neighbor at 36Poplar, is correctly questioning the accuracy of the existing fencing as being reflective of thetrue property line.)

Under any view of the circumstances, a solid 7-foot fence is oppressive. To add insult toinjury, the proposed project calls for a 6-foot fence for the areas facing Poplar and Redwoodwith wooden slats that permit at least some light to penetrate through. The 7-foot fence, onthe other hand, is a solid mass of wood that would permit no light to reach my home. I can onlyassume that the Shougers are seeking to provide a zone of absolute privacy for theirentertainment area with little or no regard for the impact on me, their neighbor. I am remindedof Joey Buckingham's observation at the last hearing: "Why make the neighbor feel all of thepain?"

lf the ADR Group again rejects the pool as a viable option, I suggest that the Shougersconsider eliminating the fence altogether between my property and theirs and allow thehedges to provide the requisite privacy. I believe the hedges would provide a far moreaesthetically pleasing barrier between the properties and would allow the light to comethrough in an organicway. Even if the poolwere to be accepted, the current design and heightof the fencing currently being proposed would essentially effect a taking of my property andshould not be approved. Nor do I consider an extension of the front- and back-yard 6-footfences with wooden slats an acceptable solution. Though that design might marginally mitigatethe loss of sunlight, it would certainly not solve the problem.

I appreciate your consideration of my concerns.

Sincerely,

Barbara Gately

'<,.:-,:.+ 'w'

+i:'

jl

It\

n

:

+G--.-,...

-,E

L"s

:

:.d

i

ts$ffik-i#j&\': n:--"*r-:::j:"+j.l:, "';r' irin'

-".=,r.,.1 .li;,.'

"q!!l+;fF...:,

-'a.i.rqfl!fi,7+.

H

Matthew Weintraub

From:Sent:To:Subject:

dickbobo < dickbobo@comcast.net>Monday, August 17,2020 5:04 PMMatthew Weintraub; ADRGroupRe-do of Shouger's proposal for pool, entertainment center, etc. - 34 Popular Av - Localpools

The Cover Sheet of the Shouger O8/O4/202O proposal has a picture in the upper, righthand corner, titledNETGHBORHOOD MAp (EXtSTtNG pOOLS HtcHLtGHTED).

They missed highlighting the pool across the street, way behind the Gorhams' house at i.8 Redwood Drive, which I showcircled in red.

The importance of this map is that it shows that none of the pools is beside a neighbor's house, so the activity in andaround the pool would not have a major impact on the quality of life of that neighbor. Nor would it have a negativeimpact on the value of the neighbors' properties.

However, a pool at the Shougers would cause Barbara Gately to suffer from both of these problems - reduced quality oflife with the pool by her main living spaces, and a hit on the value of her property.

Reiterating from my July 14 email, if the Gorham house was located at the rear of their property, and they wanted to puta pool in by our house, we would have fought that tooth and nail.

1

with the Gorhams' pool being located -120' behind and to the side of my house, the noise and commotion around it arenot too bad by the time it gets to my house.

I encourage you to again decline approval for the addition of a pool on their property based on your previous discussionsabout placing a pool anywhere in their backyard would not reduce the noise element, which in turn would have thenegative effects of loss of quality of life, and diminished property value for Barbara Gately.

Dick Bobo

16 Redwood Drive

2