Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 1997-08-20 ," ~ TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES A. INTERVIEWS 1) Heritage & Arts Commission - (Candidate Cynthia Marques) 2) Library Agency Board of Trustees - (Candidate Lynn Wellman Barr) Council conducted interviews as stated above. CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Thayer called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to order at 7:35 p.m. in Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. B. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNClLMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBERS: Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf Hennessy PRESENT: EX OFFICIO Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Senior Planner Watrous, Town Clerk Crane C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) Vice Mayor Thayer said no action was taken in closed session. ~ D. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None, E. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS OR COMMITTEES MOTION: To Nominate Cynthia Marques to the Heritage & Arts Commission and Lynn Wellman Barr to the Library Agency Board of Trustees. Moved: Vote: Absent: Wolf, Seconded by Ginalski Unanimous Hennessy F. CONSENT CALENDAR 3) Request to Join Amicus Briefs: a) Green v. City of Los Angeles; b) Sacramento Fire Protection District v. Sacramento County Assessment Appeals Board II. et al. - (Approve) 4) Monthly Policy Statistics - July, 1997 - (Accept) MOTION: Moved: Vote: Absent: To Adopt Consent Calendar. Thompson, Seconded by Wolf Unanimous Hennessy ""'" Town Council Minutes # 1121 August 20, 1997 1 - G. 5) PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE @ 11 Reed Ranch Road, AP#34- 243-16: Dean & Debbie Lehr, Applicants; L. Didi Maillard, Appellant Councilmember Thompson recused himself and stepped down. Senior Planner Watrous presented the Staff Report. Watrous stated that variances of this nature were common in the Reedlands. He also said the Design Review Board had considered the privacy issues of the Appellant and had asked for subsequent modifications to the project during its review. Watrous further stated that recent negotiations between the parties had been unfruitful and that it was Staff's recommendation that Council act as the Administrative Panel and, in this capacity, would be able to ask for modifications to conditions concerning the placement of the chimney, the only remaining issue between between the parties. Jim Mallot, architect and representative of Appellant Didi Maillard, showed picture panels to Council which indicated view blockage of the San Francisco skyline and water by the applicant's proposed house. Mallot said the 15 foot ceiling of the room in which the chimney "speared up" in the middle was not necessary and suggested lowering it to nine (9) feet. ,..- Mallot said the Lehrs had been most accommodating and had turned the ridgeline into the grain of the view, but that the issue of the placement of the chimney remained outstanding. He proposed a gas chimney as an alternative. Mallot also stated that there were no dimensions on the plans submitted by the Lehrs' architect to the Town, and therefore Mr. Mallot said his own calculations showed the FAR to be in excess of that allowed for the size of the lot, for which no variance exception had been applied. Ms. Didi Maillard, Appellant, said she had moved from North Terrace 27 years ago for the view from her current residence, and that the Lehrs' project would ruin the peace and beauty she had come to love, in addition to the value of her property. Ms. Maillard said the third chimney was in the prime view location of her residence, and that smoke would come into her house from all three chimneys. She urged Council to eliminate the chimney off the livingroom or require a gas or electric fireplace in that room. Hank Bruce, Architect for the Lehrs, said his numbers were accurate concerning the lot size and FAR, and said he hoped Council had carefully read his letter detailing the history of the project. Bruce said the project had won unanimous approval by the Design Review Board and that his clients had abided by the rules of the process Bruce said accommodations had been made for Ms. Maillard's privacy and view issues by ,...... Town Council Minutes # 1121 August 20. 1997 2 /' ,,- relocating the master bedroom and reorientation of the living room. He also said the second story would be mitigated by landscaping, but that it was true that a certain amount of water view would be blocked. Bruce asked Council not to concede to obstructionism and unreasonable requests, and suggested that perhaps the Appellant did not understand the process and rigors that his clients had gone through. Bruce further stated that the project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. In response to questions from Vice Mayor Thayer, Architect Bruce said the chimney in question was approximately 11 inches in diameter and would stick up approximately nine inches above the existing ridgeline. In response to a question from Councilmember Ginalski, Bruce said the plans were drawn to scale but that no measurements had been included. Senior Planner Watrous said the Planning Department had relied on Bruce's calculations in order to conduct design review. Applicant Dean Lehr said at this point in the process resolution was a "moving target." ,..... During public comment, the following neighbors spoke in support of Mrs. Maillard's appeal and expressed their concerns about allowing a variance which they alleged would change the character of the neighborhood: --John Silcox, 14 Southridge Court --Ruth Carlsen, 38 Terrace Court --Phil Kazoo, 49 Upper North Terrace --Daryl Divina, 44 Southridge West --Anne Ross, 16 Reed Ranch Road Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge East, encouraged both parties to continue to seek compromise. Ian Pearson, 170 Rock Hill Road, questioned how far a neighbor could go to object to a project. Ernest Murdoch, 13 Reed Ranch Road, rebutted Mr. Pearson's comments. Architect Mallot, during Appellant's rebuttal, said no compromises were made by Applicant until Mrs. Maillard filed her appeal. Mr. Mallot said it was not unreasonable to appeal a situation that would damage his client. In response to a question from Councilmember Ginalski, Town Attorney Danforth said that Council had the authority to impose "compromises" raised as part of the appeal rather than remanding them to the Design Review Board. Council member Wolf noted that the FAR issue could be verified as part of the final plan check approval. ,.... Town Coul/cii Mil/utes # 1121 August 20. 1997 3 .r-- Council agreed to deny the appeal subject to the agreement already reached between the parties to relocate the chimney located in the major view corridor to the left, and on the following basis: MOTION: To Deny Appeal and Resolve Fireplace Issue and Acceptance of Additional Conditions Nos. 1,24,5,6 & 8 stated in the proposed "Agreement Regarding View Blockage Mitigation to be Placed on Revised Plans by MIM Lehr's Architect Mr. H. Bruce" - (Attached to Mr. Bruce's August 14 letter shown as Exhibit 2 hereto) Moved: Vote: Wolf, Seconded by Thayer AYES: Thayer, Wolf NOES: Ginalski ABSENT: Hennessy (Recused): Thompson H. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 6) New Town Hall - Window Coverings - (Town Manager). Council directed the Town Manager to accept bids for window coverings (shades) and tinting of the Council Chamber windows. r-. I. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Vice Mayor Thayer adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m., sine die. . CRANE, TOWN CLERK --- Town Counci/Minutes #1121 August 20. /997 4 ~~ ,- "" EXHIBIT 2 / Hank Bruce Architects - 23 B Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone 415435.9118 August 14,1997 r= =i"i/-;;=IQ)' I-"""(;:-=Or' '::a--a':'!. i'r'" , \..l11~~_.,Ij_ TOWN OF TiBURON AUG 1 5 1997 Members, Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 ~~-, '-"-N-O- U::'7hiilMCl j ;- C""",. "'''TV -C:'I~' OPM""'JT \.i;V::'.'iUl\l! j ~ . I \ 1-:1. I Cr' Re: Proposed Improvements to the Dean and Debbie Lehr Residence at 11 Reed'Ranch Road; appeal of ORB approval of June 19, 1997 by Didi Maillard Dear Council Members: - Design Review approval was received by the applicants for their proposed improvements to their newly-purchased residence after months of intensive effort, including: . prior to purchase, discussions with neighbors, including the appellant, in which the planned living room and second floor addition were mentioned without receiving negative response . development of alternative designs to determine the optimum approach for both client and neighborhood . purposely early installation of story poles so as to accurately establish the parameters of the proposed design for visual review by both applicant and neighbors @ earliest possible date . Many discussions and much correspondence with concerned. neighbors...modification of story poles and design prior to initial submittal in 'mitigation of neighbor concerns . two ORB meetings with the time intervals between devoted to additional design studies, additional meetings with concerned neighbors and their professional representatives and further revisions of the story poles. Although it was a lengthy and sometimes painful process, the above review of this application demonstrates fulfillment of the ordinances and design review requirements of the Town of Tiburon. Applicants and concerned neighbors participated, gave input, and had that input considered in the public forum twice. In due consideration of the mass of input over this time in relation to Town requirements and physical impact upon the site, the board unanimously approved the application. ,.... It is my observation based upon more than 20 years of experience in Tiburon as a practicing architect, and more than 3 years as a member of the ORB, that the review process is essentially a conduit for compromise in the face of conflict This conflict is best resolved if the participants exercise a degree of EXHIBIT NO. cl - ,.- "reasonableness" (Le., compromise). Throughout the history of this application the lehrs have continually cooperated to mitigate neighbor concerns short of totally sacrificing their own goals. The fact that the initial concerns of Jacqueline Annes have been settled illustrates this fact. We have not had similar success with Didi Maillard. Why? Perhaps it is because the spirit of "reasonableness" (compromise) is not present; perhaps it is because fact and fiction are blurred in the thoughts and communications of the appellant and supporters. To illustrate this thought, an analysis of the Maillard "Grounds for Appeal" and the supporting letter of Alan Perper and Janet Raiches is appropriate: A. Grounds for Appeal: Maillard paragraoh #1: a. As already mentioned, the ORB demonstrated intensive consideration of neighbor concerns. b. Mention is made of the "precedent setting nature" of this application: the only "precedent" set andlor maintained in this process is that each project is reviewed and evaluated on an individual basis in relation to the ordinances, guidelines, and particular setting. The Reedlands is full of two-story dwellings. Neither the original ,..... CC&R's, nor the current Town regulations prohibit the proposed construction. c. In my already mentioned Tiburon experience, I have rarely seen a more benign view infringement. Many, many examples of much greater view blockages which have received approval over the years abound in the Town files. Essentially, no significant view. intrusion will occur. Maillard paragraph #2: a. loss of privacy is mentioned, even though that concern has been investigated and graphically proven in public session not to exist. Maillard paragraph #3: a. In recent discussions, the lehrs have agreed to move the chimney to the east wall of the living room where it will not be prominent in the view corridor. The retention of a wood-burning fireplace is, however, important to the lehrs and to the very nature of the living room as a gathering space for the family and friends. b. The lehrs have agreed not to exceed the height of the present ridge, as requested by Didi. ,-. / - Maillard paraqraph #4: a. Agreement has been reached regarding the configuration of the kitchen skylight. Maillard paragraph #5: a. The Lehrs have already stated their willingness to work with both Oidi and Jackie regarding the type and placement of the proposed trees. B. Alan Perper and Janet Raiche letter of July 27,1997: a. This letter makes several references to the loss of privacy. As previously stated, it is already a matter of public record that this will not occur. They even suggest that the Lehrs can view Oidi's house from the bedroom balcony (on the opposite side of the house). This is not physically possible! b. The "precedent" issue is again raised.. In fact, the precedent of two-story houses in the Reedlands is already well established. In fact, the only fear regarding "precedent" is to insure that the careful analysis by the ORB shown in this instance regarding conformance with ordinances and guidelines be continued on a case-by-case basis. The real "precedent" in this case is that our proposals follow and conform with the precedents of design ,- review considerations established over a period of approximately 20 years within our Town. c. The approved second story addition is directly in line with numerous similar approvals throughout Tiburon. The addition will not obstruct views; will not impinge upon privacy; is set against the hill and backdrop of trees; will match the existing wood exterior siding and existing roof slope; darkened, natural colors are proposed; and, will be detailed to integrate fully with the existing structure. Overhangs, trellises, and planters are additional design tools being utilized to harmonize the addition. It is important to note that the appeal and the typical support letters rely on inaccuracies and emotional content in contrast to the established Town procedures in these matters. .It is important to note that we have rigorously followed those procedures in receiving our approval! As indicated by the above discussion, the council should deny the appeal based upon its basic lack of merit and veracity as well as the fact that the proposal conforms in all respect to Town regulation and precedents. Having said all of this about the history of the existing application, we request - that the council consider the following events which transpired over last weekend: / - Didi Maillard hired Jim Malott to assist her in this matter. They proposed for the Lehr's consideration an agreement regarding view blockage mitigations which, if mutually agreeable, would terminate the appeal procedure. I have attached a copy of that proposed agreement. As you can see, the Lehrs accepted seven of the nine items again attesting to their remarkable spirit of cooperation throughout this long process. Item #3, a proposed retractable chimney flue, is not acceptable because such an item does not exist. The Lehrs do not wish to be pioneers in this field. We have, however, agreed to move the fireplace to the east wall thereby removing the flue form the major view corridor. Item #7 is not acceptable because it is inappropriate in the context of this proposal and because it would establish unusual requirements for the Lehrs into the future. \f'!hen all is said and done, this appeal has moved forward. to the point of a public hearing because of the lack of agreement on one "12" diameter painted metal flue set to the side of the view corridor 9" higher than the existing ridge line. This is unreasonable! In spite of the failure to achieve final closure due to the chimney, the Lehrs are still agreeable to the other mitigations. Plans indicating these changes are attached to this letter. We request support of the ORB approval by the council, modified as necessary ?'" by the above enclosures. We believe it to be highly justified. -- Sincerely, cc: Dean and Debbie Lehr / 138/'13/1997 87: 24 415-474-BS31 CAI-ITERBURY HOTEL PAGE (j2 . . _~J .,. utler' '11c:&y~ t?t" \.) Ha~K \<., re~vIfW4D r.J{~..e '.. . Ti'otJ1Q,^, r;L P(4vr.'1 2.) b'd)" McJC, 1- )" 13M or 1 0;/1 J r> ~golueion of Ocaign/View/Privacy Istruee Bat.wec:n 11 R.-d Ranch Road (Lehr) aOO 13 Reod Ranch Road (Maillard) , iJ: ~ ru:GMOlNi VJ:EW-~ MITI:GM'IctG m BE ~ W, i RWIJ3l:D PU\N9 "DY HIM I2.HR' S AAOn'mCr MR_ H. Bll.U2: : 01- 1, 'rum Ridge of Living R.oan 90 ~=- (to N-S) t:.hc::rcbv! r=oviM box effect of vi_ bl~ and returning s?n of -.ter view to ~~ ~ ReIndl Rotld. lr:i.~ remeUna at. .. 'height.. - - - - """" . l Ou . 2. Relocate LivinJ Roan Fireplace to end wall facing stnet 1W'. eas;tendl , :1 . 3.~~~."<:?,,i~. -"~~~~i~~~l;. ~-~"'2"'tf~~IfII~f T~ .to rld3e&~~"6eiC~'in: U-. ; " . Relocate Ma.slc.er SUite (I it miii:f.aUn to 1.2 feet , 11 to nt.. I . """lJI.=S. ~'''"e ch$ ekyUght toonit:or over the kitchen by . t . ma1nt&inin;; tile counter roo! glcpe o~ okyllghe. but: cnly ; ; the skyligfit area, not. extemina' cnmter-91..Ofoe to ri~. il I , 6 Select. a paint o::>lor for the val.le of the residence that .~ i " '!lfh.fP 760t or da1::kar' gray, to- bleM with the 80-90\ gray tale of. '~ . . It- ~ ~ trees, Ol)'lltlic Fawn o::>lor pt:~ i&'~ . le. . X7 ~ bel1Uld ill.are ;~taDt. tor. SCl._lmiru #13 fran l:.' , . ~~~'~ at..1.6 $M"''hY'i.~ J::ast. '1+.0._ trees JOhall ~. ~ - &e. an ~O{).daca ~...lt for 1ilC.I.".....{ng" itI3' or J , :replaced as P'Xl',iTea. to ~ scr-n,yV for 11.:j. :j; fjI.- e. Roof col= (OK as per sanple eh:lwn 8-11-97) We agree to the above - Mr . Dean Letl:r i ~~V Re vel., . N~~^)~l l~ ./ t 5tA :', . ~(ttl'1 o.s)~, V~~1 ~\s , . ~i:)fO (- If CA~ it.- Abr 1'0 11'\ ~ s l ro: ! Hrs . o.,coJ.e Lehr Ollte j. . -'j r-. Ii I J I /