Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Res 1998-02-18 (4) - r- RESOLUTION NO. 3267 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TmURON REGARDING THE DENIAL OF AN APPEAL BY THOMAS FRANKOVICH OF THE DENIAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCmTECTURAL REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2225 VISTAZO EAST WHEREAS, on May 15, 1997, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider the approval ofa Site Plan and Architectural Review application for construction ofa new 6,668 square foot single-family residence at 2225 Vistazo East, proposed by Thomas Frankovich ("Owner"); and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, including concerns raised by neighboring property owners regarding the size and colors of the proposed house and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the Board continued the request, with direction that the applicant make efforts to address the mass and bulk of the building, prepare a detailed landscaping plan, and make the colors of the house darker; and " WHEREAS, on June 19, 1997, the Design Review Board held the continued public hearing, and, after considering the modifications made to the plans to show more detailed landscaping and a revised color palette, but no changes to the overall size and design of the house, and receiving additional public testimony, the Board continued the request, with direction to the applicant to provide additional information regarding the scale of the retaining walls and how the house could better fit in with the fabric of the Old Tiburon neighborhood in which it was proposed to be located; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 1997, the Design Review Board held the continued public hearing, and considered: I) revised plans which reduced the size of the proposed house by 15 square feet (0.22%), reduced the height of the garage, and which included several driveway changes, some roof articulation, and columns along the side of the house; 2) an analysis prepared by Town Planning Staff of the sizes of3 I homes within 300 feet of the subject property, which indicated that the average size of these homes was 2,577 square feet, and that 25 of these 3 I homes were less than half the size of the proposed house; and 3) additional public testimony from surrounding property owners regarding the incompatibility of the proposed house with its Old Tiburon neighborhood; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board determined that the proposed house was incompatible with the development pattern of the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood, as expressed by a statement read into the record by Board Chairman Carla Howard (attached as Exhibit' A'), and directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for this property; and I'"' Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 3267 2/18/98 1 ,r-.. WHEREAS, on October 2, 1997, the Design Review Board adopted Resolution No, 97-1, denying the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new single- family residence on property located at 2225 Vistazo East; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 1997, the Owner filed an appeal of the Board's decision to deny this application; and WHEREAS, after several continuances made at the request of the Owner, the appeal came before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on February 4, 1998, at which time the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the appeal; and ;-.. WHEREAS, on February 4, 1998, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Town Council found that: I) the Council concurs with Board Chairman Howard's analysis of the issues presented by the proposed house under the Town's Municipal Code and the Town's Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, as set forth in the statement attached as Exhibit A, which statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference; 2) the Council further concurs with the findings of the Design Review Board as set forth in their Resolution No. 97-1, which resolution is hereby incorporated herein by reference; 3) the existing homes in the neighborhood are generally much smaller than the proposed house, both in appearance and in actual square footage; 4) the development on the other properties in the neighborhood is generally much less intensive than that proposed by the Owner, in that the actual floor area ratio ("F,A.R.") on those properties is only 61% of the maximum allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, whereas the F.A.R. of the proposed home would be 99,7% of the maximum; 5) the larger size of the subject parcel does not justifY the size of the proposed residence, and 6) the mass, bulk and size of the proposed house would be incompatible with the character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood; and WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Council determined to deny the appeal by the Owner (a vote of 5-0); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon memorializes that the appeal of Thomas Frankovich was denied, on February 4, 1998, as set forth in this resolution. r- Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 3267 2/18198 2 f' /"". -- PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on February 18, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK Tlburon Town Council Resolution No. 3267 Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews & Thompson None None ~~Z1!~ TOWN OF TlliURON 2/18/98 3 "Sep-17'97 07:12P c..ltour'E~ITNO. A 415 789 0111 P,02 ~ t:.c~ Ir-JTD !Zk-'C.-e)/,y_ 'E/I C'MLk~D ~{'6/y/ Thoughts on the Frankovich application, September 17, 1997 Re: Size, bulk and mass: Reflecting the will of this community, the to\'m of Tiburon has legally adopted the Guiding Prindples for Site Plan and Architectural Review. This means that the principles stated within it are to be given equal weight to those town ordinances which govern the maximum floor area, height and lot coverage for a specifiC site. The obligation to do so applies equally to the Design Review Board, to the town staff and to the To-....nCouncil (should a dedsion be appealed), when considering the appropriateness of a proposed project to be built within the town's boundaries, It is, therefore, the will of the town of Tiburon that the Design Review Board, which serves at the pleasure of the Tm\m Council, review as stated in these Guiding Principles, thE> "hE'ighr. size. or bulk of rhe proposed hllilding in relation to the character of existing buildings in thf' vicinity." The proposed home is to be built on a parcel of land that is situated in a "transition area" between two already-developed neighborhoods, r- considered for the purposes of this review as "the vicinity." This application's floor area is more than double that of over 80% of the homes in the vicinity, Therefore, in doing our duty by following the guidelines as quoted above, the board must be spnsitive to what-in the context of this "vicinity"-is the exceptional square footage of the house proposed. In addition, because of, as the applicant Mr. Cowan characterized it, the "very steep slope" of this site, he proposes building extensive retaining walls to provide both a flat building site for the house above and a flat site for the garage and carport b€low. Additionally, the steep site will require more retaining walls to support a driveway which climbs up some 28 feet from the street, Plus there's also the additional visual impact of the 24'- wide facade of a pair of lZ'-wide water tanks placed side by side and exposed 5' above ground level. The net result is that, in addition to the elevations of a house and garage stacked on four levels as viewed from below, the impact of the supporting structures for the house and the driveway must also be considered. These structures, as required by this steep site, would otherwise be nonexistent in a flat location elsewhere in town, making the bulk a less sensitive issue. ,..... ,Sep-17-97 07:12P caltourpubs~wh 415 789 0111 P.03 ^ Frankovich, page 2 According to an estimate made at a recent meeting by a member of our board who is also a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, the net visual impact of these retaining walls could as much as double the presence of the house on this site. Therefore, again folloYving the above- stated guidelines, the board must also be sensitive to the appearance of height (although the proposed house itself does not exceed the 30' limit) as well as the bulk of this house. Such sensitivity is especially imporTant because of the exceptional square footage when considered within the context of this vicinity as noted above. r-- On May l'i 1997, the applicant made the first presentation on this application before the Design Review Board. N 0 ~ttfiasca~iag ~lM aeeofBF'>T1;pcl thi~ pr~pMJ\l Fio%' 00,91' at t-his n.eeting-. The attending members of the Design Review Board, having each visited the site and the surrounding area prior to this meeting, specifically expressed their concerns during that meeting about both the size and the mass of this house in relation ro its effect on the character of Old Tiburon. At that meeting, ~1r. Cov.'a.Il suggested that landscaping devices such as "vines and ivy" would address the bulk issue and promised that a detailed landscape plan would be prepared for the next meeting. The board granted a continuance to June 5 to allow the applicant lime to develop a more detailed response to how specifically landscaping could resolve the bulk and mass issue. The proposal was subsequently continued at your request to June 19, ()n flint" 19. 1997 the occasion of LlJ.e second presentation of this application before the board, Mr. Cowan offered a detailed landscaping proposal to the board, However, board members did not receive a reduced copy in advance of this meeting, as is customary. An advance copy would have enabled members to adequately evaluate the landscape material choices from the specific and complex standpoint of their effectiveness in reducing The effect of this house's bulk. During the meeting, members of the Design Review Board stated that their concerns about the bulk of the total application were still unresolved and that it was also necessary to be abie to see elevations of how the retaining walls for the driveway up the hillside-just brought to their attention in -- , Ssp-17-97 07:12P caltourpubs~wh 415 789 0111 P.04 1". Frankovich, page 3 the landscape plan-would also affect the overall mass and bulk of the proposal. The applicant was additionally given the suggestion from several members of the board that he look directly at the design of this house to fjnd ways to minimize its size and bulk en the hillside. Again, a continuance was granted so that this time the applicant would be able to prepare, among other things, a grading plan and elevations that would indicate how high the retaining walls would be. As is stated in the minutes of that meeting "ThE' m:'l;n issues an' the ret;:jining walls and how the house ""ill fit in with the fabrk of the neiilhhorhood," The application ",as granted a 9O-day extension to the time limit imposed by the Permit Strea.rnlining Act. The board approved this so that the applicant might have time to prepare a response to these still unresolved concerns. The applicant agreed to a continuance for the meeting of July 13, 1997. The proposal was subsequently continued at the applicant's request to tonight's meeting, September lB. r- TOnight marks the third appearance before the board on this item. We have received the landscape plan which promises that 75% of the retaining and under-deck vvalls will be covered by vines in three years. The exact proposed location of these plantings is unspecified, This is the only solution thp applicant has put forth to redUCE t.he bulk of .the propm;E'd struC'tufe. The reyised archite('tura! plans we received in preparation for this evening indicate a reshuffling of square footage from the house to the garage, yielding a net reduction of 15 sq. ft of floor area. This is less than 1/4 of 1 % of a reduction in size from the original proposal of 6,668 square feet. Thi~ i~ the only solution the applicant ha~ propo~f'd to r?dun> thf' ~i7P of t.his structure. As the applicant's site is defined as a "transitional site" between two different neighborhoods, the issue for our review of size tonight is best considered in the statisti('a! review of neighboring properties which 1 requested of staff prior to this meeting. The results have been included in the Staff Report which was completed for public review as of last Friday, September, 12. ,..., .-Sep-17-97 07:12P caltourpubs#wh 415 789 0111 P.os I'*'- Frankovich, page 4 Of the 31 homes within 300 feet of tL'1e applicant's property, only one is slated to exceed the size of this application. The house on this site does not do so now. However, the 10,270 square foot application was granted to the owners of 1960 Straits View Drive for the following reasons-n()n~ of \o\Ihkh an> analo~otls to- or supportiv@ of- thf' proposal h@forf> us: 1. that site exceeds two acres and the building area is more level than this one; 2. the square footage is spread overfour detached structures; 3, the retaining walls for the driveway are uphill behind the house and are hidden from sight downhill; 4. the house and its dependencies are hidden from the street above; and 5. they are also nearly invisible from immediate neighbors as well as from the community at large. The second largest home in the area is the 4,768-square-foot chateau the applicant presented on May 15 in photos as an example of appropriate neighborhood context, While Ms. Kelly, the chateau's owner, supports the applicant's plans according to Mr. Frankovich's letter ofSeptember16, her home is situated well above this site so that the building of the proposed home should have no effect on the enjoyment of her property whatsoever. r- As the staff report continues, the next largest home out of the 29 remaining is 3,715 sq. ft.-nearly 3.000 square feet smaller than the proposed residence. And out of the remaining 29 houses, ZS have even less than half the floor a rpa of the proposed 6,655 square foot house-representing a considerable size disparity with most of this "vicinity" any way you look at it. I would like the board to consider three possible options we might pursue in our discussions on tonight's proposal: One might be to grant a conditional approval. This 'Nould be appropriate if you believe that we can fulfill our duty as outlined in the Guiding Principles by relying on landscaping and color as both effective and lasting solutions to the issues of size and bulk. An approval might be offered conditional to the satisfactory review of "a more detailed, fully dimensioned set of plans which clearlv indicates that the house is within the maximum floor areas - ratio for this parcel," as the staff report suggests, Additionally, a conditional approval might also be subject to a review of the specific elevations of the driveway retaining walls, and their exact plantings (as well as the precise color rendering of the buildings. if still not done). - Sep-17-97 Q7:13P caltourpubs#wh 415 789 0111 P.06 - .~ Frankovich, page 5 Another option might be to grant a continuance, This would be designed to allow the applicant the time re1I'.aining on their extension to search for further ways to tweak this design with the goal of reducing its bulk on the hillside. Some ideas might be proposed such as breaking up the building into two or three structures, digging it further into the hillside, returning the arches to the deck wall, etc,'The board might also suggest an amount by which to reduce the square footage (if the applicant. has expressed a willingness to make the house smaller). Las tly, however. you may wish to vote for a denial. This would be appropriate if you believe that this application. as currently designed or even possibly tweaked, is incapable of conforming in either size or bulk "m. the ('haractPf of existini bl1i1ding'l in the vicinity, >> Under this option, the applicant may' again go through the design review process within the year as long as the new proposal is for a "substantially different" project. Otherwise he must wait a year before returning with an application. To exercise this option, we would state the reasons for the denial in the motion. We would also instruct staff to return with a resolution at the next /'"' meeting which formalizes the reasons for our finding, -