Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2002-11-20 r" TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gram called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:42 p.m. on Wednesday, November 20,2002, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLLCALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Thompson PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Director of Public WorksfTown Engineer Echols, Chief of Police Odetto, Administrative & Financial Analyst Stott, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi CLOSED SESSION ,- PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Section 54957) Title: Town Manager Title: Town Attorney CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Howard Zack, Diane Zack v. MERA and Town ofTiburon MERA v. Town ofTiburon and Dean Bloomquist Citizens for Open Process in Antenna Siting (COPAS) v. MERA and Town ofTiburon Tiburon Residents (TRAUMAS) v. Town ofTiburon and MERA Xanadu v. Town ofTiburon CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(b)(3)(C) Claimant: DOl-Tetrad ""' Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 1 ,,-.. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY Mayor Gram said that no action was taken on the items discussed in closed session. He also said that the Council would not meet in closed session following the meeting, as noticed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - November 6, 2002 2. Recommendation by Town Manager- Commendation for Citizen of the Year a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Recognizing and Commending Mogens Bach upon his Selection as 2002 Citizen of the Year by the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce ""' 3. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Approval of 1 Sl Quarter Financial Reports 4. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer - Funding Agreement for Paradise Drive Resurfacing Project a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute Funding Agreements With CALffRANS 5. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Approval of Paradise Drive Area Future Annexation Agreement Address - 3491 Paradise Drive Applicants - John and Ann Christensen Assessor's Parcel No. 58-032-16 6. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Approval of Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Property Address - 2 & 4 Old Landing Road Applicants - Marty Winter et al. Assessor's Parcel No. 38-162-51 r--, Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 2 -- Mayor Gram asked for a change to a phrase in the resolution pertaining to Item No.2. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1 through 6, above, as amended. Thompson, seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARING 7. Recommendation by Senior Planner - Amendment to Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan Address - 120 Rancho Drive Applicants - Joseph and Susan Ahern Assessor's Parcel No. 34-393-02 Senior Planner Watrous said that the applicants sought to increase the maximum floor area ratio for this lot to 33%, which was in excess of the 30% FAR permitted in the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan. He said that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the amendment at its October 23, 2002 meeting. r-- In response to a question from Mayor Gram, Mr. Watrous said that the applicants had constructed several windows and doors for access to an as-built exercise room and play room. He said that these openings faced into the landscaped portion of the site and were only minimally visible from neighboring homes on either side. Mr. Watrous said that under the Town's Zoning Ordinance, rooms with ceiling heights less than 7'6" did not qualify as floor area. In this case, Watrous said, the playroom and wine cellar would be changed to represent storage space, and that the applicants must eliminate a window. Watrous also said that basements were excluded under the Ordinance, so that the exercise room qualified in this case because it was below grade. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Susan Ahern, 120 Rancho Drive, apologized to Council for applying for the exception "after the fact," but said that she and her husband were now trying to sell their home and wanted to "make it right." Councilmember Thompson noted that there had been similar applications in that neighborhood, mainly to utilize space underneath the "upslope" garages, and that the residents there considered it a "problem" not to be able to use the cavity under the house. Councilmember Berger said that the issue was not the increased bulk but rather, the "intensity of __ use," which might include increased parking requirements etc. on the site. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 3 ", -- He said that, in this case, the intensity was not increased from the original design. Councilmember Fredericks agreed, noting that the application followed the guidelines set forth by the Town. Vice Mayor Slavitz noted that although the increased FAR exceeded that of the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan, it did not exceed the Town's requirements in that area. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve resolution making the amendment above. Berger, seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous 8. Recommendation by Senior Planner - Appeal ofDRB Conditional Approval for Construction of Two Single-Family Dwellings Address - 2355 Paradise Drive Applicant - Eugene Aureguy Appellants - Wallace and Susan Quinn and Robin Moore Assessor's Parcel No. 59-201-49 ",...... Senior Planner Watrous said that on October 17, 2002, the Design Review Board had approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new detached two-family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback, on property located at 2355 Paradise Drive. Watrous said that after receiving revised plans for the project, the Design Review Board had concluded that the proposed design did not result in significant view or privacy impacts on neighboring homes, and that the mass and bulk of the proposed structures were acceptable. He said that the Board also determined that the narrowness of the subject lot, the sloping terrain of the property and the lot configuration with access from two streets were factors that justified approval of the detached two-family dwelling. He said that the Board then voted 3-1-1 (Boardmember Comstock dissenting and Boardmember Beales absent) to conditionally approve the application. This decision was subsequently appealed by Robin Moore, the owner of the adjacent property at 2360 Vista Del Mar Lane, and Wallace and Susan Quinn, owners of the nearby property at 2343 Paradise Drive. Watrous summarized the grounds listed by both sets of appellants, as set forth in the Staff report. - He said that Ms. Moore's appeal had eight grounds, which included a question about property lines, the removal of trees, adverse privacy, parking and light impacts. Watrous said that the DRB had concluded that these issues had been sufficiently addressed by the applicant and he recommended denial of the appeal. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 4 -- Watrous said that the Quinn's appeal was based upon two grounds: I) That the approval of two dwellings in separate structures was inconsistent with Section 2.05.01 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance; and 2) That the decision by the Board set a precedent for other R-2 zoned properties and would result in de facto upzoning of those properties. He said that the issue of interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance had also been addressed in a memo to the Design Review Board from the Director of Community Development. He said that because one of the issues pertained to the right of the DRB to interpret the Zoning Ordinance in this way, Town Staff had placed a similar application in abeyance pending the outcome of this appeal. Watrous said that the Council could either remand the Quinn's appeal to the Planning Commission as a policy issue for further study prior to hearing the appeal, or go forward with the appeal hearing. Senior Planner Watrous asked whether there were any questions of Council. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the structure that previously existed on the site was a duplex. Watrous answered affirmatively. ,-... Mayor Gram asked how large the previous structure was. Architect Hank Bruce said it was approximately 2500 square feet. Vice Mayor Slavitz asked whether it would be appropriate to add language to the zoning ordinance section that would require hardship findings, similar to those process required for obtaining variances, in order to approve detached [duplex] dwellings. Director of Community Development Anderson said that in 1989 the Planning Commission was "crystal clear" in its opposition to two detached dwellings in an R-2 zone when the current zoning language was created; however, he said the Commission had left a "narrow window" in the ordinance whereby if a "better solution" existed, and a physical condition existed to warrant it, two detached dwellings could be built. Senior Planner Watrous said it was similar to the language in the ordinance pertaining to the construction of two-story dwellings in the Bel Aire neighborhood. He said that the intention of the provision's language was not to make it "easier" but rather, not to add the "burden" of applying for a variance in these instances. -- Councilmember Thompson asked whether the issue should be remanded to the Planning Commission immediately, prior to hearing the appeals. The majority of the Council voted to hear the appeals prior to discussing this issue. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 5 -, Mayor Gram opened the public hearing on the Quinn appeal. Sue Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, since 1986, thanked Council and the neighbors for their input on this subject. She said the issue was not whether there was enough rental housing stock in Tiburon but rather, whether it was appropriate to have one or two buildings on the site in question. She said that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance said to allow detached units only in "very rare circumstances." Ms. Quinn had been present during the meetings where the actual crafting of the wording of the section took place, and that she remembered it very well. Ms. Quinn said that what we [the Commission] wanted in the R-2 zone were buildings that had the appearance of single-family homes, but that language was put in so as to not deny fair use of a few lots that they felt existed that could support two structures. She said she was "appalled" by the DRB interpretation of this section and had asked for a second opinion from the Director of Community Development to verify her recollection. Ms. Quinn also said she found a reference in the Elmo DeMartini project file that stated that "single family dwellings were intended in the R-2 zone." ---- On the color-coded map she had prepared, which was an exhibit to the appeal, Ms. Quinn showed the different lot sizes of the surrounding area and existing structures (one unit; duplexes; and three or more units). She also showed condominiums and attached dwellings with no common wall. She concluded, based on her research, that if the Design Review Board approval held, 44% of the R-2 zone properties would be eligible to have two structures. Mayor Gram asked whether any of the lots in question would qualify under the "terrain" exception. Ms. Quinn said that one, with a large rock on the lot, would qualify, in her opinion, and that another might be the lot that contained the Lyford's Hygeia bathhouse (an historic structure) in the middle of the property. Ms. Quinn said that on this basis, there was "remarkable consensus" on the part of the drafters of the ordinance to maintain the R-2 zone with single structures. Finally, Ms. Quinn showed photographs of various duplexes and single-family homes in the R-2 zone and asked Council and the public if they could tell the difference. She said that the difficulty in telling them apart meant that the "objective" of the ordinance had been met. She contended that the argument that two structures on the lot in question would appear "less massive" was erroneous, and showed examples of duplexes built on lots of similar terrain. Councilmember Berger disagreed with her assessment that one structure appeared "less massive" in one of the photographs. /"' Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 6 -- Ms. Quinn recommended that the application to build two structures at 2355 Paradise Drive be denied and that the issue [of two structures] be remanded to the Planning Commission for futher study. She said that the Commission could identify and grandfather in some lots, and/or add text to the ordinance to make it clear that the R-2 zone prohibited building two structures unless it was either "impossible or impractical" to build them in another other way. Hank Bruce, architect representing applicant Eugene Aureguy, suggested that the Town Council need not remand the issue for further study, and that the Zoning Ordinance gave them the Council and Commissions all the necessary tools they needed for "good design" and "good planning." Mr. Bruce said that the "whole point of this application" was to protect and preserve the character of Old Tiburon, and to reinforce and reproduce structures that could be woven into the fabric of the community. Bruce said that Ms. Quinn's photos showed large duplex structures that were out of character in scale, texture, and in all ways, but that the design of the Aureguy application was for two "cottages" that were more consistent with the neighborhood character and were also warranted by the site and its specific conditions. ,-.. Mr. Bruce said that he did not "come at" the application with two structures in mind, but said he quickly concluded that the roads at the top and bottom of the lot would allow for [dual] access and could leave a large yard space in the middle. He said this was the kind of "open space" that was needed in Old Tiburon, and that one structure would intrude into the space and be massive, even without a garage. The access from both the upper and lower portion of the lot would also "split the traffic load," according to Bruce, a benefit to a neighborhood with already difficult parking and traffic issues. Mayor Gram asked Mr. Bruce to list the physical considerations of this lot that would make the building of two structures a reduction of "visual, environmental or other impacts," as called for by the Ordinance. Mr. Bruce listed the terrain, the narrow and deep lot, the splitting of the traffic load onto two streets, and the existing garden and open space preservation (factors which, in his opinion, were the "equivalent" of the rock on the lot described by Ms. Quinn). Furthermore, Bruce said, there were actually view "enhancements" to be achieved by the two- building design, and that the smaller scale and would reduce the lot coverage by 20%. He reiterated that the design would be compatible with and protect the neighborhood character. Mr. Bruce said that no precedent would be set by approval of the project, and that Mr. Aureguy was willing to impose a deed restriction on the property against [future] condominiumization. ,-... Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 7 -- Councilmember Thompson expressed his concerns about condominiumization. Senior Planner Watrous said that the lot coverage and FAR's for condo's would be the same as if they were under one ownership, on this lot. However, he said that a lot split would result in a different outcome, but he opined that it would be "very unlikely" that a lot split would be approved for such a small lot. Mayor Gram asked about the boundary dispute and Architect Bruce said the design had taken into account a "worse case scenario" approach with regard to this issue. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Bill Lukens, 160 Las Lomas Lane, said that his property had been mentioned by Ms. Quinn and that it would be affected by any change to the Zoning Ordinance. He said that he owned three lots in the R-2 zone, and that he agreed with the conclusion that there were instances where two structures would work. He said he liked the "discretionary" approach to interpreting the Ordinance and asked that the Council not eliminate the language in question, nor make it so narrow as to "not make sense." He also said that keeping the status quo would ensure that small, low-income rentals remained in Old Tiburon. ,-.. Dan Archer, said it would be "devastating" to remove the clause in question, and that separate structures, especially in Old Tiburon, were okay. He said not every building should look like a single-family dwelling. Ann DeMartini, owner of2321 and 2323 Vista Del Mar Lane, directly behind the property in question, said that she and her husband created a duplex out of a single-family home 25 years ago and that it had worked out "just fme." She said she disagreed with Mr. Bruce's comments regarding "open space," stating that "more buildings and more people" would reduce the open space. She also said she was concerned about increased traffic (from two structures) and that the two (proposed) garages facing her property that would use her driveway apron as a turnaround. Pam Bartlett, 2360 Paradise Drive, said she liked the two small cottages proposed for the site; that it "fits in" and is "more comfortable" than one structure which would be "higher, narrower, and look like a train." Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. Ms. Quinn disputed the notion that the "current application is considerably smaller." She said that one structure would have a maximum FAR of 2800 square feet, and that two driveways and two accesses actually "takes away" from the open space. Councilmember Berger disagreed, stating that no more green space would be created by one structure; rather that it would be "reapportioned." r-- Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 8 ...,~... /"' Ms. Quinn countered that for her, a single mass of green was better than a "chopped up" one; she gave the example of the two dwellings at 160 Solano as an example of "chopped up" space. Ms. Quinn also said that the "character" of Old Tiburon no longer consisted of cottages, nor was it "headed that way" in the future. She said that it should be kept "in conformance" with the rest of Tiburon which was predominantly comprised of single-family homes. Ms. Quinn again mentioned the approval of the second house at 160 Solano, which she said was later condominiumized, and sold by the owner who then moved out of Tiburon. Mayor Gram closed the rebuttal portion of the hearing. Councilmember Berger said he was pleased to be "on the same side" as Mr. Lukens witll regard to the zoning issue. He said that Ms. Quinn's presentation showed a "total misunderstanding" of the chann of Old Tiburon. He said that her charts highlighted the "variety" of design rather than a neighborhood of large, single-family homes. He said that the examples of duplexes shown by Ms. Quinn were more "massive" than single family homes and that the configuration of the site required two structures. He said he would vote to maintain the Zoning Ordinance as is and allow the Boards and Commissions discretion and "common sense" rather than creating rules that "overly constrain" them. He said there was no need to remand the issue to the Planning Commission, "...." Mayor Gram asked what Councilmember Berger thought were the facts that reduced the visual and environmental impacts of this application. Councilmember Berger addressed the issue of views. He said that "housing seeks perimeter" and that structures "wanted to look at the water." In this instance, Berger said, one structure would have the same FAR but would have to be "stacked up" to look at the water. He said that the DRB "used their eyes" and that "all you see is a little cottage from above." He said that the two small structures concept was applicable to this property. Councilmember Fredericks asked to reframe the issue. She said that the issue was not to prohibit two structures, but to address the history of the ordinance. She said that it gave preference to designs that looked like single-family dwellings and gave exceptions when necessary. Fredericks recommended that the wording of the section be changed to state a preference for one structure and to require a strong showing for two structures. In other words, she recommended that the Planning Commission not "forbid" two structures but state the historical preference for a single- family dwelling "look" in the R-2 zone. Councilmember Berger disagreed with this recommendation. Ms. Fredericks said that she was not sure what one structure would look like from the street below; she suggested that it might be set back on the lot. /'"' Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 9 - Vice Mayor Slavitz said that he was listening to two of the most gifted architects in Tiburon address the issue, but that it was not a clear issue. He agreed with Councilmember Fredericks that the Town Code and history pointed to a preference for one structure and said that he was concerned about setting a precedent in approving two. Slavitz said that two structures would increase the "visual density" and would multiply by two the "apparent density". He said that two buildings would maximize the lot coverage while one would have more backyard and one less driveway. Slavitz stated his belief that the lot was not special nor was there anything about it that dictated two buildings. He also said he would send the question of interpretation of the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission, with a recommendation to re-draft it to require findings similar to those of a variance. Councilmember Thompson said that there was a lot of subjectivity in review of this application, and that points of view represented were those of a "theoretical" versus a "practical" approach. Thompson said he thought a 7,500 - 10,000 square foot lot was too small for two structures, and that the approval of the project at 160 Solano was a mistake. Thompson said he thought the Council should encourage attached single-family dwellings in the R-2 Zone, but that exceptions were needed where it was not practical. However, he said this application was "a close call." ,-.. Thompson said that he feared setting a precedent and that he was concerned about the two structures becoming separately-owned units which would "grow" when future owners asked for additions. Nevertheless, he said that after he stood on Robin Moore's deck and when he viewed the lot from the DeMartini home, he said he thought two buildings would look "better" from those vantage points. Mayor Gram said that the ordinance was "clear;" that he did not have a problem with its interpretation nor did it have to go back to the Planning Commission for review. But he said that the findings of the section must be met. He said the history of the Ordinance was always accessible; that what remained was whether the findings could be met and what the factors were that justified the approval in this instance. Gram listed the parking issue and its mitigation as a factor that justified the two structures; he said that the "open space" was not a factor; that visually, two structures "looked better" (visual finding); and that the narrowness of the site was a factor. He then asked how two structures would "read" from Paradise Drive, for example, and whether two buildings would read as "more dense" than one which could possibly "cancel out" the other visual impacts. Councilmember Berger said that the [rear dwelling] story poles could not be seen from Paradise Drive. Councilmember Fredericks said that was because there was an existing structure blocking them. -- Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 10 /'"' Architect Hank Bruce said that he lived across the street and could not see the story poles in question; and that in any event, the front dwelling would be four feet higher so as to block that view. Mayor Gram said that when he was faced with a difficult decision in an appeal, he relied on the deliberation and findings of the Design Review Board. Councilmember Fredericks said that she thought the DRB would have prohibited two structures if the Ordinance had been more clear. Vice Mayor Slavitz said that it was the Council's role to make these kinds of policy decisions. Councilmember Thompson said that the real question was how to guard against greater density, noting that sometimes people "get away" with over-developing property through misinterpretation. Mayor Gram said that there were two issues: 1) Does the project qualify under the Ordinance [section]; 2) Should the issue of interpretation (of the section) go back to the Planning Commission for review? r-o-, Councilmember Thompson said yes to both. Moved: Vote: To deny the Quinn's appeal and approve the project [two structures] at 2355 Paradise Drive based on the findings of the reduction of visual, environmental and other impacts. Berger, seconded by Gram A YES: Berger, Gram and Thompson NOES: Fredericks, Slavitz MOTION: Mayor Gram moved on to the Moore appeal. Robin Moore, 2360 Vista Del Mar Lane, since 1987, handed out a map showing neighbors who were either in favor or opposed to the project. Ms. Moore said that both the upper unit (Unit B) and lower unit (Unit A) would affect her views, especially Unit B which was "massive, looms over her property" and would impede sunlight and views from her deck and garden. Ms. Moore said that noise would be increased from two buildings and she said that she: already heard noise from Mr. Aureguy's home. She said that traffic would be increased and mentioned the danger to children in the neighborhood from cars backing out onto Paradise Drive. She said /'"' that the upper unit would use Mrs. De Martini's driveway apron to make their turnarounds. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page J J -. Moore said that Mr. Aureguy filed another application in 1990 which was denied. She asked that the Council grant her appeal and deny this application, as well. Hank Bruce, representing the applicant, Mr. Aureguy, said that the grounds of the appeal were thoroughly covered in the Staff report. He said that there was 40 feet from Ms. Moore's deck to the building in question, and he disputed the allegations concerning air, sun and privacy impacts. He said that no windows were on that side of the building and that landscaping was being added to reduce the visual impact. Mr. Bruce said that the previous submittal referenced by Ms. Moore was for one massive structure comprised of two buildings linked by a walkway. In any event, he said the application was filed before the applicable Ordinance section was adopted. Councilmember Fredericks asked if there was enough space for cars to turn around without using Mrs. DeMartini's driveway. Bruce said that there was. Vice Mayor Slavitz asked about the visual screening. Mr. Bruce said that the wall facing Ms. Moore's house would be a soft muted color and would be screened by trees. - Both Vice Mayor Slavitz and Councilmember Fredericks said that the story poles looked very tall standing in Ms. Moore's back yard and asked Mr. Bruce for dimensions of the dwelling. He said that it would be 21 feet tall at the peak and 19 feet wide, and that they were going to "hip" the roof. The Council and Mr. Bruce discussed other dimensions, such as the plate height (Berger said it was 16 feet from the dirt to the plate; Bruce said the height of the first floor was 12 feet approximately, and eight feet to the plate approximately). Councilmember Thompson asked about the elimination of stairwell windows. Mayor Gram closed the first portion of the public hearing. During her rebuttal, Ms. Moore said that a) sunlight would be taken away; the height of the upper structure was massive; and that she and her neighbors (the DeCourcy's) would be "engulfed" by the structure; that there was not enough parking; that the use of the lot would change; that her property value would go down. Finally, she asked the Council why the "new people" could get what they wanted but the older residents could not preserve what they had. Mr. Quinn read an excerpt from a letter from the DeCourcy's. -- Town Council Minutes # 17-1001 November 10. 1001 Page /1 . _ ___.,__~,___~;N,_ '"' Mr. Aureguy said that if the dwelling was moved forward on the lot that Ms. Moore's views of the Golden Gate Bridge would be impacted. Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thompson reiterated his remarks that in certain situations, two structures could be seen as breaking up the mass and bulk of a project and would "spread it out." He said that in this instance one structure would be "big and bulky" and not fit into the character of the neighborhood. He speculated that one structure would have been subject to more scrutiny by the Design Review Board to "tone it down" and possibly the Board would have required less square footage than the two structures combined. Thompson said that the Golden Gate Bridge view was better for Ms. Moore with the two structures but agreed that Unit B "loomed" over the two neighboring homes and would "stick out" in the rest of the neighborhood. Thompson made the suggestion to "drop it down" (Unit B] and lower it into the grade. He said this could be accomplished by excavating five or six feet into the hillside. That way it [Unit B] would still retain its views and help the DeMartinis and Ms. Moore. The lowering would also drop the deck on Unit B, according to Thompson, so that it would not look down onto the Quinn's and neighbor's yards. ,,,"", Thompson suggested that the roof pitch of Unit A could come down a couple of feet which would not diminish the design; alternatively, it could be "dropped down" and excavated, as well. Vice Mayor Slavitz said that Councilmember Thompson's comments "hit the nail on the head," in that one sructure on the site would have been a lot smaller than two and would have had less visual impact. He said what the Council was struggling with was the result of two buildings on the lot. He said he was "struck" by the height of the story poles and that, in his opinion, homes always "come out much larger than the story poles." Although he agreed that the space in the middle of the proposed project preserved the view of the Bay, Slavitz said it could also have been accomplished with one structure. He said that the two- structure design benefited the owner of the property but created other problems. Councilmember Berger said that lowering the building five feet would be hard to achieve and keep the parking but that a three-foot reduction in plate height was probably achievable. He said that Unit A would have to "come down" if Unit B was lowered in height. Berger said that in his experience in serving on the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, one house would have been just as large [in square footage] because applicants always sought the maximum allowable square footage. - Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 13 "..... Councilmember Berger also said that he was concerned with preserving the privacy of Ms. Moore's side yard, but noted that her house was really designed to look out at the Bay. However, he said that restricting the comer wrapping windowns on the back end and minimizing the "light pollution" from the stairwell windows could help address her concerns. Councilmember Fredericks said that two structures on the lot was the problem and that she was not convinced that it was the only solution. She said that Ms. Moore was not concerned about the view of the Bay but about the loss of privacy and light from her garden. Mayor Gram said he agreed that the buildings should be lowered and that the roofs should come down, but he didn't know how many feet. However, he said he would vote for the two structures as proposed by the applicant. Councilmember Thompson said that it would be helpful in the future for plans to show two structures on one lot in scale and in relation to the whole lot and each other. He also said that he would vote to require a deed restriction so that the units would not be condominiumized; and that he still thought the unit [B] should be dropped five feet either into the grade or in height, and still have a view of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge. Architect Bruce and Councilmember Berger disagreed with the five-foot recommendation. .- Mayor Gram said that the Council should not deal with specific numbers. The Council discussed whether to remand the application to the DRB for review or have Staff review the plans with direction for a "significant drop" or to lower the units "as much as possible." Vice Mayor Slavitz reiterated that the front unit (Unit A) would have to be lowered, as well. Councilmember Berger said that the roof would have to come down on that unit because "if the back unit is lowered the front one will want to look over it." Architect Bruce said that he did not know if lowering the unit three feet was achievable, He suggested that the Council just give the direction to "lower the building." Councilmember Fredericks said that if the proposed change was such that Ms. Moore would still see a "looming mass" from her garden, she wondered whether three feet would actually help. If not, she suggested that the architect not be further "tortured." Mayor Gram asked whether anyone wanted to make a motion. III III III ,...... Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 14 I"""' MOTION: To remand the project to DRB with the understanding that two units on the site is permitted but that we are directing the applicant, the project sponsor, to attempt non-trivial modifications to improve the light in the adjacent yards and to improve thellower the mass vis a vis Unit B to the adjacent yards. Moved: Berger Senior Planner Watrous said that the Council had also talked about the privacy impacts. Councilmember Berger added that the DRB should address window size and locations to increase privacy for the houses on either side; properties. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the deed restriction about condominiumization was in the motion. Councilmember Berger said that because the applicant had offered it, the Town should accept it, but that he did not want to say that people who build projects in Tiburon could not condominiumize. Gram said that in this instance, a condition should be placed on this particular project not to condominiumization or subdivide it. r- Councilmember Thompson seconded the motion, as amended. Vice Mayor Slavitz asked whether the changes to the structures, "hipping" the roofs and lowering them a number of feet, could be reviewed by Staff rather than remanding the application to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Berger asked Staff whether they felt that they would be able to make a judgment for what a "non-trivial amount" of a drop was. Senior Planner Watrous said that Staff would prefer that there be very specific direction so that it was not a subjective decision. Councilmember Berger asked whether Staff would be comfortable with "three feet on the back unit and some more feet on the front unit." Councilmember Thompson suggested the direction of "three feet or more," and "an appropriate reduction on the front [unit]." Mayor Gram asked Councilmember Thompson ifhis second to the motion still stood; lhompson said that the motion started off with remanding the application to the Design Review Board. __ Councilmember Berger withdrew the previous motion in order to formulate a new one. Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20, 2002 Page 15 ,.-.. Senior Planner Watrous clarified that the motion should state that Council was partially granting appeal with the following conditions. MOTION: Moved: Second: ",..that in so doing we're directing the project sponsor to go back for Stall's approval in which Unit B is lowered 3 feet or more and Unit A is lowered, the roof is lowered, some appropriate distance; that the project sponsor's offer to put a deed restriction on that project not be condominiumized be accepted; and that the windows facing the two side yards be redesigned to increase privacy to the side properties and light pollution effects be minimized." Berger Thompson (with the comment that it be "understood" that the direction to Staff was three feet) (or more (Berger)). Vice Mayor Slavitz asked whether the three foot reduction would be based on a "hipped" roof design, rather than the current design. Councilmember Berger said that the "hipped" roof just meant that the two triangular sides "tip in," but that the ultimate height was to come down three feet. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the plans reflected the original reduction of a certain number offeet that was achieved between the time of the DRB and the appeal, so that the Council direction was for three feet in addition to the six or eight feet shown in these drawings. .'"""' Council concurred. Vote: AYES: Unanimous Director of Community Development Anderson asked whether the Council wished to return to the issue of whether the Zoning Ordinance section needed clarification and the policy issue of one structure versus two structures in the R-2 zone should be remanded to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Moved: Vote: - "To send it [Zoning Ordinance section] to the Planning Commission (and to use Mrs. Quinn's map) to see if the variance-type findings (suggested by Vice Mayor Slavitz) were necessary and also to consider the question of whether this Ordinance should reflect that single-family dwelling-type appearances are a preference and two structures should only be allowed with these strict fmdings." Fredericks, seconded by Slavtiz AYES: Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Thompson NOES: Berger Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 16 ~ 9. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Amend Chapter 13 of Town Code to Incorporate Revisions to Title 24 part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, the 2001 California Fire Code and the 2000 Uniform Fire Code Introduction and /" reading of Ordinance a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Building Regulations) Director of Community Development Anderson said the amendments would incorporate the most recent California Building Code and Fire Codes, and would incorporate the Town's proposed limits to hours of construction on weekends to 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 on Saturday with no construction on Sundays or holidays. Mayor Gram opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To read Ordinance by title only. Thompson, Fredericks AYES: Unanimous r-- Mayor Gram read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Building Regulations)." MOTION: Moved: Vote: To pass first reading of Ordinance. Thompson, seconded by Berger A YES: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Thompson COUNCIL. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - November 8, 2002 Town Council Weekly Digest - November 15, 2002 Item No. 17 - Bus Shelter Design (Tiburon Boulevard in the vicinity of Stewart Drive). Council directed Staff to send a letter to the affected neighbors to inform them of the proposed project by Golden Gate Transit and/or to agendize the matter for public hearing. - Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 November 20. 2002 Page 17 ~ ,-., -- Councilmember Thompson said he would like to be appointed to the RUSD committee to study the proposed parcel tax. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram adjourned the meeting at 11: 1 0 p.m., s' die. TOM GRAM, MAYOR ATTEST: /' .'1 '1 J . I 'j tt~,~ (" ( C:L "Iti DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes # 27-2002 Page 18 November 20, 2002