Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2002-10-02 -- TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gram called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 2,2002, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Thompson Slavitz PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Director of Community Development Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Chief of Police Odetto, Director of Administrative Services McVeigh, Administrative & Financial Analyst Stott, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi /""' ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPOINTMENTS TO TOWN BOARDS. COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES . Heritage & Arts Commission - One Vacancy Town Clerk Crane Iacopi noted that Council had received another application, in addition to the one in the agenda packet, for the vacancy as of the September 30, 2002 deadline. She outlined the Council's options with regard to filling the vacancy. Mayor Gram directed Staff to agendize interviews of both applicants at the next regular meeting. Item continued. CONSENT CALENDAR Item Nos. 2 and 5 were removed at the request of Council. Councilmember Berger requested additional information concerning Item No.5, which was continued to the October 16, 2002 meeting. r"' Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2, 2002 Page 1 I'" 1. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Accept August 2002 Town Investment Summary 2. Recommendation by Senior Planner - 124 Leland Way; Uphold Appeal a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Granting the Appeal by Janet and Jennifer Carter of a Site Plan and Architectural Approval for a new Single-family dwelling located at 124 Leland Way - AP No. 34-175-05 3. Recommendation by Town Manager - Approval of the Emergency Operations Plan 4. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Adopt Armual General Plan Status Report for FY 2001-2002 5. Recommendation by Director of Community Development -Construction Debris Recycling Program; Adoption of Existing Policy on a pennanent basis -- a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Establishing a Construction and Demolition Debris Policy For Applicable Building Pennits 6. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Approval of Paradise Drive Area Armexation Agreements a) 3201 Paradise Drive (Keran) -AP No. 58-081-19 b) 3215 Paradise Drive (Ferris) - AP No. 58-081-13 c) 3245 Paradise Drive (Ghazi) - AP No. 58-081-14 7. Recommendation by Advance Planner - Support of Proposition 46 - Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Supporting Proposition 46, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 3, 4, 6 & 7 above. Berger, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous III -- Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2, 2002 Page 2 -- PUBLIC HEARING 8. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Denial of a site plan and architectural review application for construction of a new two-family dwelling located at 2120 Mar East Street with reduced front yard setback and floor area exception Assessor's Parcel No. 59-181-90 Applicants & Appellants - Fani and Gary Hansen Senior Planner Watrous presented the Staff report. He said that the Hansens had reduced the overall living area and lot coverage since the previous application had been reviewed by the Town Council in May of 2002 and was remanded to the Design Review Board ("ORB"). In addition, he said the side yard setbacks had been reduced and the building height lowered by 1- 1/2 - 2 feet; a deck had been eliminated, as well as half of the windows facing Mar East Street. Nevertheless, Watrous said that the Design Review Board maintained that the overall issues of mass, bulk and view blockage still existed. At its August 15,2002 meeting, during its review of the current application, the Senior Planner said that the Board concluded that lowering the building height an additional five feet would ameliorate these problems, and had asked the applicants if they wanted to continue the matter. The applicants had turned down the offer, according to Watrous, and had asked for a vote on the project. The Board voted 2-1 (Chair Figour dissenting; Boardmembers Comstock and Teiser absent) to deny the application. -- Mr. Watrous said that the Hansens subsequently filed a timely appeal of the decision, based on four grounds: 1. The ORB did not follow the direction given by the Town Council at the first appeal hearing. Mr. Watrous said that the Design Review Board had received copies of the minutes of the May 1, 2002 Town Council meeting. In addition, the Board received copies ofa letter from Town Staff to the applicants dated May 17, which summarized the Council's discussion from that meeting, and followed the Council's earlier direction. 2. The ORB imposed new and severe limitations upon the applicants. Mr. Watrous said that the Board's recommendations to the applicants were based on an attempt to mitigate the view impacts on the neighbors at 2105 Mar East Street and are clearly identified in Goal 3, Principles 7 (A) (B) (C) and (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines. 3. The ORB and Town Staff discriminated in applying different standards to this project than were applied to other projects in the vicinity. -- Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2. 2002 Page 3 -- Mr. Watrous said that the same principles were applied to the other applications, however, different topographies led to different decisions on these applications. 4. The DRB abused its discretion in making its decision. Mr. Watrous said that the Board acted within its authority while following the Hillside Design Guidelines and Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review. He recommended that Council deny the appeal. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the suggestion by the DRB to lower the building height by five feet was from the submitted 45-foot building elevation. Mr. Watrous said yes, that it was in addition to what was presented to the DRB on August IS. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Fani Hansen, applicant and appellant, said that the project had been through five public hearings in all. She said that she had initially requested information from the Town's Planning Department and was given zoning and design guidelines. Ms. Hansen also said that she was told by the Town that other houses on Mar East Street had exceeded the limitations set forth in those guidelines. -- Ms. Hansen said she had conducted meetings with the neighbors to discuss the proposed project. She said she had concluded that because hers was the last vacant land on that street to be developed, it would be difficult to please everyone with a design, especially since the land had been used "as their own" by adjoining neighbors for years. Ms. Hansen said she realized the importance of the impact on views from 2105 Mar East Street and that it would be important to establish acceptable view corridors from that location. She said that most of the neighbors did not have any objections to the project initially. Ms. Hansen said that at the conclusion of the May 1,2002 Town Council hearing, the Council had commented that the project "was close" to approval. She described the changes she had made to the project at Council's direction and said she had updated the drawings to reflect those changes. Hansen described the reduction in elevation, the elimination of the detached deck, and reduced "wall of glass". She said that a building elevation of 45 feet was presented to the Design Review Board in August. Ms. Hansen showed slides of the view from inside the Freeburg's home (living room). She also said that she had moved the side yard of the project in order to give the Freeburg's a bigger view corridor. -- Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2, 2002 Page 4 -- Ms. Hansen said that the floor area of the project was reduced by 1,716 square feet so that the lot coverage was now 34.4%. She said that the current application requested no lot coverage variance, even though she stated that the project next door to her had received a 64% lot coverage, substantially higher than the maximum for the R-2 zone. Hansen further stated that the sloped roof had been eliminated, and a 50-foot deck was removed; the ridge height lowered from four to 30 feet in different locations, and the glass on the North side reduced by 50% which was now behind existing planting. She said that all of these things were of benefit to the neighbors. Ms. Hansen she said that the existing hedge had been preserved, and that they were providing a ( new) side yard view, as well as off-street parking. She also said that theirs was the smallest lot coverage in the vicinity, and that the enlarged rear and side yards were better than most of the existing ones on Mar East Street. Ms. Hansen told Council that she and her husband had "done everything you've asked us to," and asked for Council's approval of the project and an overturning of the ORB decision. Councilmember Thompson asked if Staff agreed with the appellant's statements concerning the project. Senior Planner Watrous said that most of the larger figures stated by the appellant represented [cumulative] reductions from the very beginning of the design review process. He said that the reductions from the last hearing were summarized in the Staff report. -- Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Nancy Oenz, 2130 Mar East Street, located east of the site and contiguous to the project, said that she and her husband had "not used the property as our own." She said that the shade studies referenced by Ms. Hansen were not accurate and that the shading on the west side of their property was an issue. Ms. Oenz said that the changes to the application were "cosmetic" and did not address the height and bulk issues. She said that the neighbors had asked for an addition five-foot reduction to the height of the building which they (the Hansens) had refused to do. Ms. Oenz said the result was that the Hansens had "sweeping views" but that the neighbors were in danger oflosing their views. Mayor Gram asked how Ms. Oenz and the neighbors had come up with the five-foot request. Ms. Oenz said it had come out of one of the meetings with the Hansens in the Freeburg's home wherein the view was assessed by the lowering and raising of a piece of paper taped to the window. She said that it was an approximation and that they had relied on their best judgment in reaching it; however, Ms. Oenz said that it represented a full-story reduction from the original project. -- Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2, 2002 Page 5 -- Maxine Coplin, 2844 Paradise Drive, said she had built her own home as well as another home at 2842 Paradise Drive. She said that she followed the Town's process and procedures but "thanked goodness" that she was not going through it now. She reiterated Ms. Hansen's statement that almost all of the homes on Mar East Street had variances. Ms. Coplin said that she favored the Hansen's project which would enhance the value of her own property. She said that quibbling over three or four feet of elevation would only result in lawsuits. Janet Freeburg, 2105 Mar East Street, described the impact of the proposed project on the view from her and her husband's living room. She said that the project story poles were located at the near end and that it would be helpful to see what they looked like at the far end, as well. She said she feared that the poles at the far end would show a much greater view blockage than what was visible from the existing ones. Ms. Freeburg asked why she and her husband should sacrifice their views for the approval of a four-story building with unlimited views, including views from tertiary rooms. Ms. Freeburg also said she was concerned that the glass on the street side of the project would create glare and impacts on their night views. Ms. Freeburg said that they had appreciated all the changes made by the Hansens; however, she said they had only come down four feet, which was not enough. She said the DRB had agreed with their assessment and asked Council to uphold the Board's decision. '"' Jerome Denz, alluded to a lack of respect for the process, and for Town Staff, the community and the neighbors. He also said that the Hansens had constructed an orange "construction barrier" on their mutual property line, which the Town's Building Department had "red tagged" as illegal (lacking a building permit and DRB approval). He said Ms. Hansen told him that they had erected the fence on advice of counsel. Mr. Dens asked Council to deny the appeal. Marion Hinman, 2074 Paradise Drive, in that location since the 1960's, said she thought there . were better designs for the lot and voiced her opposition for the project. Mayor Gram closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Hansen, during her rebuttal, said that the construction fence was a "temporary fence" to show the property line. She said that after explaining the situation to the Town's Building Official, she concluded that it did not require a permit. Ms. Hansen also posed the question of whether it was necessary for "everyone to agree" in order to gain design approval. She said that she understood that the neighbors (Denz and Freeburg) '"' were unhappy, but that they (the Hansens) were actually giving something to them rather than Town Council Minutes # 24-201)2 October 2, 2002 Page 6 -- taking something away. She noted that she too had been part of the community for 31 years. Councilmember Thompson expressed concern about the "non-traditional" steel and glass materials of the proposed project. Ms. Hansen pointed out that the colors of the building materials had been chosen to blend with the surrounding water and vegetation. She also said that the steel siding matched the "shape" of the wood siding (tongue and groove) of other homes in the area. Councilmembers Thompson and Fredericks asked whether one of the materials was "rust" color. Ms. Hansen replied that that was a mistake in the Staff report and that it was not rust, but blue. Councilmember Thompson asked if the east elevation was comprised of a single material with no windows. Ms. Hansen replied that was correct. Thompson also asked about the composition of the roof; Ms. Hansen said that it would match the pebbles on the beach. With regard to the story poles, Thompson asked how much distance existed between the northern face and the southern face (which did not have story poles). Senior Planner Watrous said it was approximately 12 feet. After measuring the plans, Councilmember Berger concluded that it was 16 feet to the edge rather than 12 feet. -- In response to a question from Councilmember Thompson with regard to windows, Ms. Hansen said that the only glass was on the side facing the Bay and that the sides were "completely closed." Councilmember Thompson said that it was difficult to read the plans and that they contained the "worst descriptions he had seen on plans." Councilmember Berger said that he did not have a problem with the materials or modem design, which he called "elegant and beautiful." He said that when a building comes down in height it usually means that it expands, concluding that it was "nice" that it did not do so in this case. However, Berger said that [lot] coverage was not the most critical factor in this instance. Berger said that the issue was whether a new house "fit" into an existing built-out neighborhood and what effect it would have on the existing homes. He said that a house could be "close" in height to the surrounding homes but still be unsatisfactory in its relationship to these homes. Berger said that this was especially true given the height impact on the Freeburg's home. Councilmember Berger said that the Hansens in essence "held the pencil" and could redesign their project where the existing homeowners could not. He said that there was an issue of fairness, in that the Hansen project stood to gain views from not only ceremonial and secondary rooms, but from bridges and spaces within the house, as well. __ Berger said that although he was not attempting to redesign the project, he thought that there was Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2, 2002 Page 7 -- a way to achieve these same views and benefits of the site with a different design. He said that it would be possible to design two, side-by-side three-story townhouses which could keep the double height and ensure that every room had a view. Councilmember Berger said that although the design had "shrunk" and changed in some ways, it had never changed in the "most basic way." He said that although the DRB was not unanimous in its decision, he would vote to uphold the decision, noting that he thought it could be a "win- win" situation for the Hansens if they redesigned the project. Councilmember Fredericks said she concurred with Councilmember Berger's assessment. She said that the design and materials were creative, and that she "loved" Fani's design style. However, she said that the Hansens had received consistent direction regarding the mass and bulk and view impacts of this project, and that the subsequent changes did not address the DRB's concerns and direction. Councilmember Thompson said that he had looked at the project from several locations and angles and had concluded that it did not seem consistent with the "look" of the neighborhood. He described the proposed building as a "large box of glass with steel siding." However, he agreed with Councilmember Berger's assessment that there were other ways to approach this project. He said that a "band of water" showing the base of Angel Island should be part of the Freeburg's view that should be maintained. -- Thompson also agreed with Ms. Hansen that "not everyone has to agree" but said that a negotiated compromise [with the neighbors] was preferable. Mayor Gram said that although he had "no taste" or opinion about the colors and materials of the design, he said that he could not imagine a 12-foot flat roof. He said that maybe it was time to conclude that this design would not work in that location. He said he would vote to deny the appeal because of the height, the flat roof, and view blockage issues. In response to a question from Council, Senior Planner Watrous clarified that denying an appeal without prejudice meant that the same application could not be resubmitted within a one-year period, but that a revised application could be submitted earlier. MOTION: To deny the appeal without prejudice and direct Staff to return with a resolution of findings. Thompson, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz Moved: Vote: COUNCIL. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS __ None. Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2. 2002 Page 8 - WRITTEN COMMUNICA nONS Town Council Weekly Digest - September 20, 2002 Town Council Weekly Digest - September 27,2002 Consent Calendar Item No.2 - Recommendation by Senior Planner; 124 Leland Way; Uphold Appeal. Mayor Gram said that he voted against the appeal on the basis that the particular design of the proposed project at 124 Leland Way did not fit with the other houses of the neighborhood. He said did not want to pass on that the Council was discouraging second stories, per se. Councilmember Thompson agreed. He said that the message was that "we're not excluding second stories but it's going to be difficult to get [an approval for] them." Thompson said that if change did come to the neighborhood in the form of second stories, it would be at "micro creep" pace. - Councilmember Berger clarified that the words he had used, "strongly discouraged," were taken directly from the Code. He said that he voted to deny the project "as proposed." Councilmember Fredericks said that she had received a call subsequent to the September 18 hearing asking whether the Council meant (from its action) to "ban" second stories in Bel Aire. She agreed with Councilmember Berger that voting to deny the project "as proposed" meant that there could be other applications. After discussing of the wording of the resolution prepared by Staff, Council asked that the words "development pattern of the" be stricken from the sentence in the third to the last paragraph. Applicant/appellant Jeff Houston, 124 Leland Way, said he had collected signatures 000 neighbors who (like him) wanted to make sure that there was not blanket opposition to two-story homes in Bel Aire. He said that they wanted to maintain a two-story design option per the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Thompson said that the Council was aware that a large group of people in the area were interested in two-story homes. Mr. Houston suggested that the word "current" be added to the phrase "development pattern." Mayor Gram said that Mr. Houston's comments mirrored Councilmember Thompson's. He said _ that Council's suggested changes had "softened" the resolution and that, together with the Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2. 2002 Page 9 r-- minutes of the September 18,2002 meeting, would make it clear that the Council agreed that a two-story design was not categorically denied. Councilmember Berger agreed, stating that "strongly discouraged" meant "hard to do," rather than an outright ban. Mr. Houston said that he just wanted to have these comments in writing because there were people who would never "allow" a two-story house in Bel Aire, and wanted the Zoning Ordinance to be rewritten to reflect this sentiment. Councilmember Berger said that at a meeting he attended at the Carter residence, the neighbors there said they were not opposed to two stories, per se. MOTION: To adopt the resolution with the deletion of the language "...development pattern of the..." in the third paragraph from the end. Berger, seconded by Fredericks A YES: Unanimous Moved: Vote: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram adjourned the meeting at 9: 1 0 p.m., in memory of Stan Pasternak, fonner Jt. Recreation Committee member who had only been able to a brief time before he had to resign due to "..... illness. I' Town Council Minutes # 24-2002 October 2, 2002 Page 10