Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Minutes 2012-09-05TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fraser called the meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:10 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. INTERVIEWS Heritage & Arts Commission - One Vacancy • Francella Hall • Lee Erickson [application withdrawn] CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - Regular Meeting 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: Collins PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jack Diego, Diego Brothers and a Marin County builder since 1982, distributed a letter to the Council regarding enforcement of a policy regarding waterproofing windows at their project at 430 Greenwood Beach Road. He complained about enforcement of requirements by the Building Division regarding his prof ect. Mayor Fraser suggested that Mr. Diego possibly appeal his matter to the Building Appeals Board, and City Manager Curran asked that Mr. Diego contact her the next day to further address and resolve the issue. Brian McLaren, McLaren Roofmg, voiced his concern about Building Division inspection processes. He recommended the City initiate an independent person to review all Town projects done in the last six months, survey and obtain feedback from those owners as to inconsistencies and problems they have had with the inspection process and the Building Division. Mayor Fraser stated that the Town will take his comment under advisement. David Kulik asked for an amendment to the August 15" minutes on page 24, 1 st paragraph, 2" d to the last sentence, "'Therefore, he said he cannot support the appeal." He asked that this be amended to read, "Therefore, lie said he can support the appeal" or that "he said he could not support the application." Mayor Fraser suggested and Councilmembers concurred, to remove the minutes of August 15`" to clarify Councilmember Collins' comments and agendize them for the next Council meeting. Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September S, 2012 Page 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 18, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 25, 2012 special meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of August 1, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Councilmember Fredericks referred to page 11, 1st paragraph and said some people interpreted the comment of Riley Hurd to mean there are 10 less seats of capacity than in the current Founder's Room. She clarified and recommended his comment should read, "There are 10 less seats of capacity than in the "new" Founders Room. 4. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of August 15, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) - Removed 5. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for period ending July 31, 2012 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 6. 2308 Mar East Street - Adopt resolution granting appeals of Design Review Board decision to approve a request for site plan and architectural review to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception (Associate Planner Tyler) Applicant: Dr. Peter Wilton Appellants: Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, David and Kathryn Kulik AP No. 059-195-01 MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 (as amended), 5 and 6, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Town Boards, Commissions and Committees - Consider appointment to fill a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Mayor Fraser reported that one of the applicants was not able to be interviewed and the interview will be continued to September 19, 2012. . MOTION: To continue appointment to fill a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission to the next Council meeting. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 2 2. Establish Standards for keeping of Honey Bees and Chickens - Adopt resolution establishing standards for keeping of honey bees and chickens pursuant to adoption of ordinance (Community Development Department) Associate Planner Tyler presented the report detailing the history of the text amendments to Chapters 16 and 20 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The Council voiced three concerns relating to bee-keeping which she explained: 1. The Council could choose to set a minimum lot size in order to qualify for the keeping of bees; 2. Staff has drafted Standard No. 3 which would require an applicant to submit owner signatures of non-objection for all physically contiguous residential parcels as part of the application. The standard is written in a manner that the applicant's inability to secure the required signatures would not necessarily end the process but would trigger a conditional use pennit, provided it was the only standard that could not be met as part of the application; 3. Staff has found several bee keeping certification programs throughout the country, many of which are on-line courses or offered at local universities. Staff was unable to find any local bee keeping- related courses with the College of Marin and they checked with local bee keeping associations; Marin Bee Keepers, Marin Bee Company, and Marin Bees to determine if they offered any certification courses,. without response. She noted that Standard No. 6 requires use of best management practices for bee keeping but requires no fonnal training or certification. The Council should consider whether the standard will suffice for any local bee keeping purposes, but staff would note that standards for bee keeping are adopted by Resolution and can be modified quickly if found to be necessary. Staff recommended the Council hear and consider public comment, make desired revisions to the draft standards and move to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Fredericks questioned who defines what are best practices. Ms. Tyler said that someone would need to educate themself on standards for bee keeping as learned from books, classes or other experienced bee keepers. Councilmember Fredericks said what troubles her is lack of enforcement mechanisms in meeting minimum standards. Ms. Tyler explained that if a neighboring property owner has honey bees next door and they are swarming or do not appear to be receiving the proper care, such as where they keep flying over into neighbor's yards to get water, the neighbor should let staff know, take photographs or contact a local bee keeping association to determine if it is normal behavior or not. She said that is what is meant by substantial evidence. Councilmember Fredericks said she found at least 6 courses offered on-line and she believes education and not necessarily certification should be required. Mr. Watrous stated that at the last meeting staff suggested that the individual be asked to provide documentation of the education rather than certification. It was the consensus of the Council to include the documentation requirement as part of Standard No. 6. Councilmember Fredericks referred to the ratio of hives to lot size, and she asked where this information came from. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he recalled that this was in the context of certain locations in town where bee keeping would be excluded, like apartments. Councihmember Fredericks said in the standards (Condition No. 4) there was mention of the number of hives and she wondered how this was generated. Ms. Tyler said there was no scientific method, but was based on what has been seen in other jurisdictions that have regulations. Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 3 Mayor Fraser asked and confinned with Ms. Tyler that the Town will have a list of places where education can be obtained as part of the application process. Mayor Fraser also asked and confirmed that if a neighbor writes an objection to a colony, and files a use permit, that the applicant will be required to pay additional fees over and above the permit fee. Mayor Fraser called for public comments and seeing none, he closed the public comment period. Councilmember Fredericks supported conditioning the keeping of bees as a good idea, as well as a conditional use permit procedure if they cannot as a good compromise. She also thinks that some kind of training course and documentation should be required, but did not have an opinion as to limiting it to larger sized lots, and questioned what this meant. Vice Mayor O'Donnell concurred with Councilmember Fredericks' comments and asked if there is a particular zone staff would recommend from which bee keeping would be excluded. Director of Community Development Anderson said as the standards read, the use must be associated with a single- family dwelling use and are not allowed in the R-3 and RMP zones. Councilmember Doyle supported Council suggestions and asked to give the process a try. Mayor Fraser agreed and asked staff to provide a resource list at the Town as part of the application process. MOTION: To adopt the resolution establishing standards for keeping of honey bees and chickens pursuant to adoption of orduiance, as amended. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tiburon Redevelopment Successor Agency Actions - Consider adoption of an updated Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project (Town Attorney Danforth / Director of Community Development Anderson) Director of Community Development Anderson gave the staff report and said Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in California were abolished and the Town of Tiburon is now the successor agency for what was the RDA. Many of the responsibilities have now carried through to the successor agencies and one is the Implementation Plan required with all project areas created. Tiburon has just the one project area and the bonds were paid off many years ago, but the housing production requirement is still there that the Town provide 6.5 very low income units either within the project area or outside of the area. What staff has done in this update to the 2007 Implementation Plan is to carry forward the concept that those affordable units would be located on sites already identified in the Housing Element for affordable housing, which is a minor subset of what is required in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation,(RHNA). Mr. Anderson said the Town has resources available in the form of RDA set-aside monies which they jointly control with the County of Marin Housing Authority and housing in lieu funds that could be used toward meeting the housing production requirement. Staff recommends holding the public hearing, take comments, consider revisions, and adopt the resolution approving the updated Implementation Plan. Toivn Council Minutes #17 -2012 September- 5, 2012 Page 4 Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked Mr. Anderson to explain the differences between this and the ABAG RHNA figures. Mr. Anderson explained that this requirement for housing production is because the Town had a RDA project area and built housing within the RDA area, namely the Point Tiburon residential development. Whenever this is done, it triggers a requirement for a certain percentage of the units built to be affordable as moderate income or low income. It is totally separate from the RHNA numbers generated by the State because it is a requirement only because the Town had a redevelopment project area in Tiburon. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if one requirement supersedes another requirement, and Mr. Anderson said one can fulfill the other but they must be treated separately. Any affordable units built as part of the RDA plan would also count towards the Town's regional numbers. Councilmember Fredericks said if the Town uses any of the RDA tax increment money, they can use it on a site outside of the RDA area and it just counts for fewer units. Mr. Anderson stated this is correct; as credit. Councilmember Fredericks said if there is a private development of a project outside the RDA project area and it is not making use of the tax increment, she asked if it is not required to address the CRL requirements for affordable housing. Mr. Anderson explained that if a private project development is built outside the RDA area, it is not responsible to provide these units, but if tax subsidy from the RDA is used, the Town would get credit for the units using the money as a subsidy. Mayor Fraser referred to the minutes and said the unused Reed School land at 1199 Tiburon is part of the overlay zone for affordable housing. He asked who has ultimate decision-making for this particular site. Mr. Anderson stated the school district controls the property. The Town has designated it as such, but in order to have the property used for this purpose, the owner would have to agree to this. The same could be true for any of the privately held sites. Mayor Fraser questioned and confirmed with City Attorney Danforth that the money the Town gave to Marin Housing Authority in terms of the Town's ability to manage the money is in partnership through a cooperation agreement. It contained a housing plan and they are to use it in accordance with that plan, subject to the Town's approval. Mayor Fraser asked if it could be used outside of the Town, and Ms. Danforth said she did not believe it could because it could not satisfy the housing production requirements. Mr. Anderson added that he believes they must satisfy that first and if anything is left over, potentially it could be used. But the primary purpose is that they must use the money first and foremost to complete the RDA's obligations. Vice Mayor O'Donnell stated that in order to effectively use this money, they must have a project or partner with a private entity because the amount of money is not substantial enough to build anything major, which is part of the requirement. He asked if steps were being taken in this direction, and Mr. Anderson said yes; the Council has a subcommittee actively working on this. Mayor Fraser opened the public comment period, and seeing no speakers, he closed the public comment period. MOTION: To adopt an updated Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September- S, 2012 Page 5 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS - (moved up to allow reports by Vice Mayor O'Donnell (recused on the next item). Vice Mayor O'Donnell questioned and confirmed that staff has traditionally canceled the November 21st Council meeting. Ms. Curran stated the November 7"' meeting is, therefore, the last substantive meeting of the year. One December meeting is ceremonial to appoint the new Mayor and the second meeting has always been canceled. She added that the Town is also host to the MCCMC Dinner, the CART Meeting in September as well as other activities on the calendar. Regarding the January 2, 2013 meeting, this is the day after New Year's and Ms. Curran stated the Council can hold this meeting and staff would prepare ahead of the weeklong furlough prior to that. Another option is to cancel it, push it back one week or hold two January meetings back to back. Vice Mayor O'Donnell suggested waiting to make a decision until November to determine the January meeting schedule. Vice Mayor O'Donnell stated he heard from many people in town who asked to get back to holding a parade on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend. He spoke about Belvedere's wonderful concert series on that date and said they have the larger or bigger acts on that Sunday. Ms. Curran said there were some considerations with Joint Recreation's decisions not to proceed with it this year mainly because it is a week after the Art Festival which is too much to do them both well. There has been some talk about moving either event to a different date, possibly having a spring parade and then finding the right niche for the Art Festival. She said anything is possible except having them on top of each other. Councilmember Fredericks said she worked on a couple of the parades and the proximity to the last school weekend snakes it hard to get young families to participate prior to school starting, so some balance is needed. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said Tiburon likes to foster things Belvedere does and he suggested rescheduling the Art Festival on the weekend before. He thought perhaps having it just before the Sausalito Art Festival in the summer might be better, and he would like to see it pushed into the nicer months of the fall or another time. Ms. Curran said staff can explore the calendar. Mayor Fraser agreed and suggested getting additional resources to help the Joint Recreation team which is also a possibility. He also suggested better communication about cancelling the parade. Councilmember Fredericks pointed out that at one time, the major responsibility for the parade shifted from year to year between Belvedere and Tiburon. Ms. Curran said this was very burdensome on Joan Palmero and she agreed to discuss this further with Councilmembers and review the calendar. Recused: Vice Mayor O'Donnell recused himself at 8:19 p.m. due to a conflict of interest regarding the proximity of his residence to the subject property. 2. 440 Ridge Road - Consider appeals of Design Review Board approval of an application for site plan and architectural review to construct a new single-family dwelling, including variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height, and a floor area exception (Planning Manager Watrous) Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September- S, 2012 Page 6 Applicants: Ridge Road, LLC Appellants: Lynn & Mark Garay; Fani Hansen & Angela Danadj ieva AP No. 059-082-21 Staff presented the report detailing the history of the project, discussed the request by the DRB for redesign of the house, revisions made by the applicant, approval by the DRB of the revised design, and events leading to the appeal. Staff recommends taking testimony on the public hearing, closing the hearing, deliberating on the matter, either grant or partially grant the appeals, and return with a resolution at the next meeting. He noted DRB Member Greg Johnson was present and then reviewed the protocols for appeal hearings. BREAK Mayor Fraser called for a brief recess at 8:35 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Mayor Fraser asked for the appellant's presentation. Mark Garay, appellant, gave an overview of his home and his decision to purchase it 18 years ago. He noted the attraction of its privacy and views, the setback of the property at 440 Ridge Road and its height which did not intrude into any other line of sight. He said they built their house with the expectation that they would maintain their privacy. The planned project at 440 Ridge Road is an issue and a problem for them and they feel that the design of the project and the approved plans do not take sufficient consideration of contiguous properties' and are not respectful of the privacy of those owners. He also believes there are other options available to the applicant that would mitigate concerns or address them in a way for there to be no intrusion. Mr. Garay explained that the nature of the development along Ridge Road has been such that each of the properties has taken steps to dig into the hillside and bring the height down so there would be no intrusion to properties above them or below them. He said that this project was one where the new structure would rise 3 to 4 feet and, at the same time, spread out across the site where it creates angular projections that result in excess lot coverage and visual intrusion. He felt that the bases of the appeals that staff read were self-evident and stand on their own in the record. He said that while the 7'8" fence approved by the DRB would provide protection for their outdoor shower and spa, it does not provide protection for the backyard swimming pool area which they enjoy frequently. Ideally, he would like to see the project re-thought, compacted and brought into the hillside, with an end result that respects the contiguous properties and beautiful views. If that was not a possibility, he must next consider what mitigations are available to address his concerns with the existing project. He said that those mitigations would be to increase the fence height on the east side of his property to 9 feet and to change the fence height at the west side to 6 feet. Mr. Garay also stated that the rear or east portion of the house has been misrepresented and needs clarification. He said that his request to build the 9' fence was received at the DRB hearing with the characterization that it was a "Berlin Wall," but this failed to take into consideration that there is a grade difference between the two properties. He said that if they put up a 9' fence, the applicants will only see 5' of it because the rest falls into the hillside. He felt that the bottom part of the fence would be not seen because it drops down and could easily be mitigated with planting or a 3' planter box, and the "Berlin Wall" could disappear with some landscaping. He noted that some landscaping is actually shown on the plans. He said the other matter is the pine tree which is a heritage-sized tree. Staff is correct that there is a letter from an arborist which states that the tree is sick and will die. He said that there was some discussion that Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 7 the tree obstructs views of the uphill properties but there was no information of what the tree obstructs. He felt that there is a completely inadequate record to support destroying the pine tree and thought that a court would come to the same conclusion. He said that another concern involves Ms. Danadjieva property at 450 Ridge Road. He said that he has been in the real estate business for 36 years and is sensitive to valuation and for sale issues. He said that her house is on the market but that no one is likely to buy it without putting another floor in. He said that given that another floor will be added inside the house and she has made an application for that, he stood up on the planter in her living room and viewed the point of view of the proposed floor, and the proposed house would be dead square in the Golden Gate Bridge view and this will have a huge financial impact to her. He said that she will build the floor in three months at the time demolition work may be occurring at 440 Ridge Road and the two projects could collide. Therefore, he suggested this be considered carefully before action is taken. Councilmember Fredericks asked if there is an application for a project at 450 Ridge Road. Mr. Watrous said that an application was submitted that afternoon; however, it was not complete. Fani Hansen, appellant/architect, gave a PowerPoint presentation and stated that they are all here to help and not destroy each other. She said that they would like to ameliorate the situation, help the applicants and do something everybody will be proud of. She felt there are two changes needed to save the Golden Gate Bridge views from the living room from 450 Ridge Road, along with its privacy and sunshine. She stated that the east wing's length has to be shortened by 24 feet and the height must be decreased by 4 feet. To accomplish this, she suggested relocating the laundry and maid's rooms to the lower floor. She said her sister, Angela Danadjieva, bought the lot for a top price because of its views of the Golden Gate Bridge and panoramic views. She asked not to deprive them of privileges granted to other properties in the vicinity such as those homes at 470 Ridge Road and 445 Ridge Road. She displayed a picture of the present building at 480 Ridge Road and said the developer was asked to reduce the size of the structure. She said that her sister lowered her house 30 feet from the street level to respect the views from 445 Ridge Road. She displayed what would be seen if 440 Ridge Road is developed from the living and dining room and presented a picture of loss of sun and privacy. Ms. Hansen stated they offered suggestions to ameliorate the plans and presented the proposal to relocate the garage. She asked to be consistent with approvals of other neighbors, not to block the Golden Gate Bridge view from the living room and not to take the privacy of the living and dining rooms. She said their goal is to offer suggestions to reduce the injury to other properties. Angela Danadjieva, appellant, said she was surprised with the amount of time spent on the project because a small amount of effort could solve the problem. She said that she was not against people building. She accepted that most of the south part of the house would be screened, but she cannot accept losing the views to the Golden Gate Bridge. She was considering selling the house and all realtors have told her that views of the lot are panoramic and now they would be taken by a fence, shrubs, apd the house. She said that they do not want the applicants to redesign their home, but they suggest putting the laundry room and maid's room to the lower floor. This will reduce the length of the house and views will not be impacted. She said she only has one hour of daily light in the master bedroom and family room. Councilmember Fredericks asked for an explanation of the slope of the driveway and the turnaround. Ms. Hansen said that they also suggest a new driveway approach that would will be longer in length and flatter than what is proposed. Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 8 Councilmember Doyle questioned why Ms. Danadjieva's house was reduced down by 30 feet. Ms. Danadjieva stated she bought the lot in 1982 as a panoramic view lot. The owner of the lot above her lot across the street saw that her home would be in his view of their residence, and she agreed to pay the cost to drop down her home by 30 feet to not encroach their views. Ms. Hansen pointed out that views from the new project will impact views into Ms. Danadjieva's dining and living room. Mayor Fraser asked for any clarifying questions from Councilmembers, and there were none. Phoebe Holscher, Holscher Architecture, representing the applicants, said the owner met with the appellants (Ms. Hansen and Ms. Danadjieva) many times and incorporated all their wishes that were technically feasible without sacrificing her client's goals for the house and site. They redesigned and put up story poles for the project three tunes, moved the two-story portion back 48 feet and not 21 feet as the staff report indicates. They dug the house down to remove the volume up above which she pointed out on the plans, moved the master bedroom to the other side of the house, moved the secondary bedrooms downstairs under the deck, pulled the east side back 21 '10" after the first review, changed the pitch of the roof from 7:12 to a 5:12 hip roof, added a solid 5 foot fence along the property line, and added a 10 foot solid hedge along the property line that will provide privacy and more light across the side yard than the existing 40 foot tall trees do. She displayed the appellants' principal view from their patio, and said that only when looking 90 degrees to the right would they see the house. She said that they showed the view from their back patio as if it went straight across to their lower floor, but it does not. She presented what the cross section between the properties looks like. Councilmember Fredericks referred to the first photograph and the vegetation below the trees on the right, and asked whose it is and what is under it. Ms. Holscher said it is a continuation of the slope and all of the vegetation is on her clients' property. Ms. Holscher continued and said she would discuss massing, the Hillside Guidelines and the comment that the house do not adequately step down or dig in to the site. She presented drawings showing the appellants' house, the natural grade at the property line, a section taken through the main space of the applicant's house or the living room, and the cross section through the site. She presented the proposed design where the top of the ridge is 328.75 feet and the appellant's is higher. She did not understand why they needed them to lower 4 feet when the massing of the appellants' house is clearly larger than theirs. Regarding the sunlight issue, she presented the section through her client's property at their living room and the height of their property showing an acute angle which still gets into their living room and does not block light. She said that the existing 40 foot tall trees actually block their light, and while they want privacy, they do not want them removed. She said that there is no existing view of the Golden Gate Bridge, but have looked at this. She was concerned about last minute lobbying and submission of the application for a potential upper floor expansion submitted this afternoon by the appellants, saying that it seemed underhanded, given its timing. She said that the view of the Golden Gate Bridge for this expansion would still not be blocked by their house. She said she stood at the corner of the existing footing and she looked back at the appellants' house at the corner and in the other direction towards the bridge and she found a direct line between the Golden Gate Bridge and the appellant's house that would not be blocked by the new house. She said that the existing foliage blocks most of the house. She said that the conger of the house would be well away from any view of the bridge and this is not an issue. She said that they used analysis from Google Earth and maps, and projecting a ray which captures the full width of the bridge, and found that the proposal would not block it, and that the Garays' home will block it before theirs does. Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 9 Regarding the privacy issue, Mrs. Holscher said that they proposed a 5 foot solid fence and 10 foot high hedging to provide more privacy between the two homes, and this is part of their DRB approval. Ms. Holscher stated that Ms. Danadjieva submitted an alternate plan which is not what they want to build. She said that never before had she seen a neighbor come up with the scheme of their own and demand it is the only acceptable one for the site. She was not aware of anything in the Town's guidelines that says that the applicant, DRB or Council is required to consider an alternate design by another neighbor. She said that they did modify the design in response to the appellants' concerns and suggestions. She said that the driveway of the alternate scheme would be longer, very close to the property line and would require a very high and expensive retaining wall. She said that the turnaround Ms. Danadjieva proposes is impossible and one would not be able to turn around. Regarding moving the laundry downstairs, she said that her clients do not want to go one floor down to do laundry and do not want the guest room (not the maid's room, as suggested) downstairs and separate from the children's room on the main floor. She said that the driveway is problematic and the options are not ones that she or her clients are willing to consider. David Holscher, Holscher Architecture, said he believes they did an exceptional job of mitigating for the appellants' (Lynn and Mark Garay) property. They pulled back the activity wing, hipped and dropped the roof 2 feet and lowered the bottom floor. He said that the appellant also wanted a 10 foot fence, not a 9 foot fence. On Friday, May 25"', Mr. Holscher, his client and 5 workers worked 4 hours to come up with the revised plan. He said that Mr. Garay stated that all he had to worry about were the down lights and he probably would not come to the meeting. Mr. Holscher said that their last plan had an outdoor area and a place to sit where the appellants' property could be seen, and this was mitigated. He noted that the hot tub and pool were relocated, which had been proposed close to Mr. Garay's backyard and hot tub. He stated that they paid for a variance for the fence which will be very odd, but it was all for Mr. Garay. Mr. Holscher stated that they would have three sets of bushes of screening. He said that they addressed all comments and are trying to be good neighbors. He said that they worked extensively with the Mr. Garay and he was stunned that after Memorial Day, Mr. Garay said the changes would not work for him. Mayor Fraser asked Mr. Holscher why the family room came out 4 feet. He explained that they have two different materials coming together and they set them off because it would be odd to have done otherwise. Councilmember Doyle asked and confirmed that the fence is proposed to be solid. He asked and confirmed that about the location of the yellow tape shown in the presented illustrations. He then asked Mr. Holscher to point to where the tree is located. Mr. Holscher stated that it is dying and dangerous, and he did not understand why Mr. Garay wants to save it, as it could potentially crush either house. Mayor Fraser opened the public comment period. Public Comments: Lowell Strauss said about one year ago he went through the design review process to build a new home. He said that during that process, Ms. Danadj ieva was very agreeable and did not protest anything they were doing. He said that the neighbor on the other side of the proposed house, Jim Bernhisel, cleverly came up with an argument for protecting his future development potential. Mr. Strauss said that the planner and the DRB bought into this argument and as a result, they reduced their house to 5,600 square feet to about 5,000 square feet, pulled the house back 23 feet and reduced the quality and value of the home significantly. He said that Mr. Bernhisel successfully argued his case that he had a full on Golden Gate Bridge view from the existing structure which was not impacted at all. Mr. Strauss said that he looked at the plans for this project and did not think there would be much of an impact, but he took a 12 foot ladder Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 10 and looked at the second story from within the existing mass of Ms. Danadjieva's home and the story poles block the Golden Gate Bridge view. He said that the value of Ms. Danadjieva's property will be greatly diminished and it is not fair or equitable. He said that Ms. Danadjieva's house is on the market now and she has not been able to sell it for a year, and if the project is approved, he was not sure if anyone would purchase her home because it will not have a view. He felt that her property rights need to be protected and he asked for equality in the way these things are approached. He voiced his support for the appellants, stating that the addition will eliminate any possibility for a Golden Gate Bridge view within the existing building footprint and will greatly diminish the value of her property. Jim Bernhisel said this old neighborhood was built in the 1950's. He has an 1800 square foot house and the applicant's property is about the same size. He said that Mr. Strauss' house is now about 1800 square feet and then there are 4500 square foot homes which impact the area which was designed for 2,000 square foot homes. He said that Ms. Danadjieva has a relatively new home at about 4500 square feet and it seems peculiar to him that his property, which will need to be enlarged at some point, was brought u1 to make some sort of analogy between her house and his house. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the recently approved house at 460 Ridge Road had to change to address the views from Mr. Bernhisel's house. Mr. Bernhisel said no. He gave some history of the development in his neighborhood, stating that agreements were made throughout the neighborhood about where someone was going to build a house and where they were not, all without design review and a planning department. He said that homes were built that captured wonderful views in the entire area, and it was done between neighbors and their architects. He said that the house that Mr. Strauss proposed was completely in front of his home and he objected to this, and the DRB agreed. Councilmember Fredericks said the previous speaker said that when 460 Ridge Road was built, its design took into consideration the existing view from 480 Ridge Road and asked if Mr. Bernhisel's existing Golden Gate Bridge view is out of the periphery of a panoramic view or was it the center of his view? Mr. Bernhisel said it is centered; his house is directly viewed to the south. Councilmember Fredericks asked what the future potential view that was being saved by the way 460 Ridge Road was designed. Mr. Bernhisel said he would have been boxed in to have any ability to enlarge his house like the rest of the neighbors from 2,000 to 4,000 or 5,000 square feet. He could not go down or up, so his only ability is to maneuver in around Mr. Strauss's new development. Councilmember Doyle clarified stating if the house had been built the way it was proposed originally, Mr. Bernhisel would not have been able to expand his house in any way that would have maintained the views, but he currently has a view in his small house. Mr. Bernhisel concurred with this. He agreed that the future development of a home should be considered, particularly if it is a 1950's house and all homes around it are being remodeled and more than twice their size. He felt that this is an important consideration for planning staff and the DRB to consider. Paula Little said during her 24 years living in her home, she has seen the pine tree deteriorate and it is a serious problem. She said that the Hannahs who lived there before were unable to take care of the tree and it is a danger and should be removed. Mayor Fraser called for the appellants' rebuttal. Mr. Garay indicated that he had nothing to add. Fam Hansen, appellant, disagreed with the applicant's representatives in describing there are no view impacts, as well as privacy impacts. She said that this would affect Mr. Garay's privacy as well, but his Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September S, 2012 Page I1 house is much lower and his views go much wider to the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. She said that sunlight comes down and through the trees, but the solid wall of a house would create different shadows, and she asked that her view be preserved. Dave Holscher referred to the tree and said three uphill neighbors have asked for the tree to be removed. He said that views of the Golden Gate Bridge would not be blocked and there is no physical evidence supporting that claim. He said the DRB was at the site and saw that the house would have no impact on the peripheral views. He also said they would not take sunlight away from their new design. He said this is the hardest project he has ever worked on and appreciated the DRB coming and looking at the site. Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing and asked for comments from DRB Member Greg Johnson. DRB Member Greg Johnson agreed that the project has been lengthy, but he thinks the staff report and minutes reflect very accurately the deliberation and amount of work that went in by the DRB. He said that all Boardmembers visited the sites, and believed there was great deliberation and direction given to the architect after the first presentation. The DRB consists of two architects and he has worked and designed homes in this area, including Councilmember O'Donnell's house, and he knows the process of designing houses on the hillside. He said that it was important to note that what they responded to and approved responded to all issues the DRB had raised. He said that the project was a sensitive solution to those issues raised. He said that what has been proposed is no different than a lot of other homes within this area. He said that Mr. Strauss' project went through the DRB three times because it was not properly designed for the property and was revised several times. Mr. Johnson said that he was troubled by some of the information and the way things were presented tonight. He said that the Council was presented with photographs and photomontages of a building and extension of a building in a condition that will not exist. He said that the architects have clearly presented a landscape plan that included a fence, hedging, etc. to help screen the properties. When the Council was shown a photograph, there were no trees, even the tree Mr. Garay would like to see removed. He suggested that the Council take into consideration the quality of the staff report, the amount of time the DRB spent looking at the property, walking on the property, the feedback in the minutes and given to the architects and owners, and the fact that the DRB unanimously approved the project the second time it was brought back to them. Councilmember Fredericks said Mr. Johnson for his recollection of the issues with Mr. Strauss' home. Mr. Johnson said a couple of DRB members did raise the issue of protecting a future view. He said that a couple of members brought this up, but he did not share the same opinion. He believes that sensitive design is done carefully to allow for future development. He said it would be very hard pressed for anybody to design a building on Mr. Bernhisel's lot that would capture the Golden Gate Bridge view without enormous costs and massive intrusion into the site. Mr. Watrous said his recollection was that there was some discussion in terms of Mr. Bernhisel's home as a smaller older home that would likely want to expand in a similar fashion that other homes have expanded in the future, and that the original design Mr. Strauss presented would somewhat constrain where that possible addition would go. He said this was one of a number of issues brought up and Mr. Strauss was asked to redesign it to address a number of issues, and the final version did address all issues to the satisfaction of the Board. He noted that any discussion of potential expansion for 450 Ridge Road was not mentioned whatsoever at the DRB meeting and not brought up by the neighbors at all. He said that nothing was officially brought to the Town until the application was filed this afternoon, which he said requires a floor area exception and is incomplete. Mr. Watrous said part of the difference is that the house at 480 Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September S, 2012 Page 12 Ridge is an original 1950's house, while Ms. Danadjieva's house is much more recent and is nearly at its floor area ratio. He said that there is no expectation that the house for sale has to have an expansion, especially being that close to its floor area ratio. Mayor Fraser asked for Council comment and deliberation and to take the appeals individually, addressing the Garay appeal first and then move to the appeal from Angela Danadj ieva and Fani Hansen. Councilmember Doyle said he had no issue with removing the tree because it blocks views and will most likely fall over. He said that these trees are troublesome and this one is right in the middle of the living space of the proposed house. He said that Mr. Garay's house has been in magazines and is beautiful. He remembered when it came through at the DRB and there were changes proposed. He said that Mr. Garay's house is beautiful and has incredible views, but is also built-out with many variances. He said that the amount of the rear yard that would be viewed from one spot in the new house would be very minor. Councilmember Doyle said he did not like the variations in the fence design and felt that a 10-foot fence was unnecessary. He said that the approved fence with the shrubbery or vines would be fine. He did not think that the fence would block any views and there could be some agreement between the property owners to figure out the landscaping. He thought that a straight fence would look better. He said that no one is guaranteed complete privacy for their property. Councilmember Fredericks concurred with Councilmember Doyle's comments, agreed with the findings and conclusions of the DRB. Mayor Fraser echoed Councilmember Fredericks' statement. He said that the Garay property is built out almost at the property line and the view impact would be minor. He agreed that the fence should be one height. There was discussion about the location and design of the fence and the possible need for additional landscaping in front of the fence. Mr. Holscher said that the landscape plans shows such vegetation already. Mayor Fraser said he believed the DRB made the proper findings and supported the application. MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Lynn & Mark Garay appeal. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous Regarding the second appeal of Ms. Danadjieva at 450 Ridge Road, Councilmember Doyle stated that in walking down her steps, there is a spot where one can look directly at the Golden Gate Bridge from the window. He said that one does not have the rights to views sideways across properties. He said that there would be some loss of privacy in the rear yard. He said that these are two drastically different homes. Ms. Danadjieva's home can be compared to a cathedral and was designed specifically for that space and feels like it has always been there. He did not think there has ever been light into the bedrooms, because there is a 4 foot overhang on the roofs which may only provide some light in the winter. He said that there will be a difference given that there will be a building next door as opposed to trees. He questioned whether or not the shrubs will be 10 feet tall when planted or will they grow to that height in 10 years. He thought that the view out the rear of the house is the view. He said that the architect has tried to do what they can to pull the new house back and have done nothing to impact the appellants' views. He was not sure how to change the feeling that the house would look right into the patio. He supported the DRB's decision but asked that Town Council lfinutes #17 -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 13 something be done to plant shrubs or trees to keep the area outside Ms. Danadjieva's house somewhat screened. Councihnember Fredericks recognized the problems about this project and how it relates to Ms. Danadjieva's house. She said that there is no concept in the Hillside Guidelines that protects a house from its surroundings. She said that the DRB noted that this was an urban setting. She agreed with the DRB findings. She thought that the difference in sunlight between the existing trees and the proposed structure is just a victim of the urban setting of all the houses in that neighborhood. She was concerned about the issue raised about whether there is any duty to preserve a potential view, because the view of the Golden Gate Bridge is on the periphery. She said that some of the information the Council was given about precedent for view protection of future improvements was difficult to apply to this project. She said that the ability to expand Mr. Bernhisel's house is limited by what is going on the lots around it. She noted that Ms. Danadjieva's house was built later and does not have the same capacity to expand. She supported the DRB's findings and their conclusion. Councilmember Doyle added that it struck him that when Ms. Danadjieva's house was built she did something for a neighbor she did not have to do. She incurred a lot of expense and dropped her house down 30 feet, and while there have been some changes made on the applicant's design, he would like some thought put into mitigating the one element of how the house would look into their yard. He would support what the DRB said but he wanted some give and take on the applicant's part to provide some privacy, such as a tree or something. Councilmember Fredericks recognized the applicant's nonverbal agreement from the audience to do something regarding planting for more privacy. Mayor Fraser agreed. He said he had been to Ms. Danadjieva's house 4 to 5 times. He said that the roof overhang blocks sunlight from coming into the house and he did not see views of the Golden Gate Bridge from inside the house. He said that a second floor added to the house would be :loser to the ceiling and look at the eaves of the roof, so the only way one could capture a view is to push the house further out on the lot. He thought that the massing of the applicant's house facing Ms. Danadjieva's house was rather significant. He wished there was a way to pull it back some more, and thought a little bit could go a long way. Ile agreed with Councilmembers that proper mitigation of vegetation to provide screening and privacy was important and he would like to make sure it was sustained. He said that he could not find fault with the DRB's findings and decision, and he could not support the appeal. MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Fani Hansen & Angela Danadjieva appeal. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS - Provided earlier in the meeting. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - August 17, 2012 • Town Council Weekly Digest -August 24, 2012 • Town Council Weekly Digest - August 31, 2012 Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September S, 2012 Page 14 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the T the meeting at 10:35 p.m. in honor of Irving Rabin. i JIM FRASER, M Y ATTE DIANE CRANE IA OPI, TO CLERK of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned L Town Council Minutes #17 -2012 September S, 2012 Page 15