More review ahead for Montage homes

Barbara Diamond

Members of the City Council, Design Review Board and Planning

Commission and representatives of the developer and owners Montage

Resort and Spa and its architect thought view issues had been hashed

out years ago.

They thought wrong.

The City Council voted Tuesday to support the appeal of

condominium owners who said their view loss was not properly

considered by the Design Review Board when it approved the first two

estate homes on the Montage property.

“Montage architect Morris Skenderian told the Design Review Board]

that heights were off the table and that’s how the majority of the

board treated it,” said Montage condominium owner Ronald Schwartz,

who appealed the approval of the two homes.

Schwartz called the review a sham that did not honor the city’s

commitment to view equity.

The council sent the plans back to the board and asked it to

confirm that it had held a full review and felt it had achieved view

equity or to conduct a new review.

Board members Ilse Lenschow and Ben Simon were on the board when

design guidelines were hammered out in separate and joint meetings of

the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The

tailor-made guidelines were in some instances more restrictive than

the city’s single-family standards -- such as a one-story limit.

“We (developer Athens Group) would never have agreed to

restrictions placed on these lots if they would have known that, in

fact, they could be made to further restrict the envelopes of these

homes through the design review process for further view

considerations,” Skenderian said.

Lenschow and Simon agreed with Skenderian at the Design Review

Board hearing of the first house that city reviews were limited to

aesthetic treatments -- such as style, color or materials and

consistency with the guidelines established in the joint meetings.

They persuaded two other board members to their position, also

endorsed by Greg Vail, who chaired the joint meetings.

Vail wrote in a letter to the council: “We intended subsequent

[Design Review Board] review of the single-family residences to focus

on assuring that the design guidelines intended to produce

world-class architectural and landscape quality would be carried out,

not to modify the view equity equation that was hammered out by the

[Planning Commission/Design Review Board] review of development

plans.

“That the appellant is reportedly retaining 65% of his view from a

ground unit villa three rows back, more than confirms that the

[Planning Commission/Design Review Board] adequately established view

equity in the earlier decision making and that no further adjustments

are warranted.”

Schwartz argued that all of his views would be taken by the home

proposed for 21 Shreve Drive in front of the condominiums.

He also said he would have like the same sensitivity shown for his

view that the developer showed for the potential owner of 21 Shreve

in the design of the home below it, preserving views.

Approved landscaping would obscure any sliver of the Schartz’s

view that was left, said Sindi Schwartz. However, the couple’s real

lament and the complaint of other condominium owners was the process.

“Cheryl [Kinsman] and I were on the Planning Commission when the

[Montage] project was being reviewed,” said Councilwoman Elizabeth

Pearson. “We went through 30 hearings and established standards for

this project with the Design Review Board.

“We wanted everything out in the open. We didn’t want what

happened tonight to happen. It’s very discouraging. I am sorry we had

to go through this. That’s not what we had in mind.”

Kinsman said the Planning Commission treated the redevelopment of

the former Treasure Island Mobile home Park as a planned unit

development.

“We didn’t concern ourselves with views within the development,”

Kinsman said. “We concerned ourselves with public views and views

from Blue Lagoon. We thought we took care of all of this.

“Comments from the [review board] members were made because they

were there at the meetings. They thought we did all this. But there

weren’t real people living there then.”

However, Councilman Wayne Baglin remembered that at the council

meeting of March 12, 2002 when the final tract map was approved, he

had asked for a clarification of design review for the condos and the

estate homes.

“If the interpretations differ, the municipal code trumps

[community rules],” Baglin said.

Schwartz said the developer had agreed to put the designs through

the city review process.

“They knew that,” Schwartz said. “We didn’t.”

The guidelines set maximum heights and coverage for each of the

estate lots. The maximums are not entitlements, Baglin said. He also

found fault with estate homes’ architectural review committee that

consists of architect Skenderian, designer of the first two estate

homes; John Mansour of Athens Group, which developed the property;

and Bill Claypoole, a Montage employee. No private property owners

are on the committee, which City Attorney Philip Kohn said is not

unusual when a development is first starting.

“Although this particular development will not directly impact our

view, it will no doubt set the standard by which all other lots will

be developed, and thereby shape our quiet use and enjoyment for many

years to come,” said condominium owner Wylie Aitken.

Eighteen people, not counting the City Council and four staff

members, testified, fourteen in opposition to the approved plans

and/or the process by which they were approved.

The hearing began at 10:45 p.m., Tues. and ended at 1:17 a.m., one

measure of the serious consideration given the design review process.

“When the process is flawed, the project is flawed,” said resident

Arnold Hano. “That’s what happened here.”