ROLL CALL Berger absent
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Staff update.
Commission information items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1999. Approved (3-0)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
70 MONTEREY DRIVE: CYPRESS HOLLOW PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, FILE #39906; Deborah & William Strull, applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 34-394-07. Continued to 1/12/00 meeting (3-0)
4850 PARADISE DRIVE: PRE-ZONING OF 1.5 ACRES OF LAND TO RO-2 ZONE, FILE #R99-03; William & Eileen Baylis, owners and applicants; Assessor Parcel Nos. 38-053-01, 24. Adopted (3-0)
160 SOLANO AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND A PROPOSED SECOND RESIDENCE INTO CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP, FILE #19906; Margaret May, owner; Assessor Parcel No. 59-142-12. Adopted (2-1)
ADJOURNMENT a991208
MINUTES NO. 817
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
Vice-Chair Slavitz called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Vice-Chair Slavitz, Commissioners Klairmont and Stein.
Commissioners Absent: Chair Berger.
Staff Present: Senior Planner Watrous and Planning Secretary Vorster.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Senior Planner Watrous advised the Commission that the Town Council had appointed Alice Fredericks (currently on the Parks & Open Space Commission) to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission left by Nancy Knoble. She will be sworn in at the January 12th meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1999: Approved as submitted (Stein/Slavitz 3-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 70 MONTEREY DRIVE: CYPRESS HOLLOW PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, FILE #39906; Deborah & William Strull, applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 34-394-07.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this was an application to increase the maximum floor area ratio for the Cypress Hollow subdivision. Currently the Precise Development Plan allows a floor area ratio of 30% of the lot size. This would amend that to allow additional space if entirely contained within the mass and bulk of the approved house. The applicant wishes to increase the FAR for this parcel to 32.3% to add a playroom, den, and bath beneath the existing garage.
The Cypress Hollow Subdivision was annexed to the Town earlier this year. The Town’s default FAR would allow 3,160 square feet for this property; the Cypress Hollow Precise Plan allows 3,480; and this application would result in 3,750 square feet.
Mr. Watrous stated that this was similar to the amendment to the Kuhn’s precise plan. He noted that there are a number of homes in the subdivision that are on flat land that would not be affected by this amendment. An FAR exception has usually been approved by the Design Review Board if the increase is within the mass and does not change the exterior. He found this application to be consistent with the General Plan and the principles of the Cypress Hollow Precise Plan and recommended adopting the resolution of approval.
Commissioner Stein asked why it was not more appropriate to request an exception for one individual property. Mr. Watrous said this is not generally a tool the Town uses on Precise Development Plans. They make the standards to apply to the whole subdivision, unless the house is unique from others in the subdivision.
Commissioner Stein said it would be much less a burden on the applicant if they were only applying for their own property. Mr. Watrous said it would be less a burden to not have to speak for everyone in the subdivision, but they would have the additional burden of proving their property is different. He confirmed that they could have done it that way, but Staff did not recommend that course.
Commissioner Klairmont noted that this would open the door for everyone in the subdivision to make this change. Mr. Watrous said it would not apply to some in the subdivision, but it is the type of exception approved by the DRB.
Vice-Chair Slavitz asked why this application could not just go to DRB. Mr. Watrous explained that the FAR exception is only permitted for properties in other residential zones, not Precise Development Plan zones. Since this application goes over the 30% allowed, it has to be an amendment to the PDP. Mr. Slavitz asked why the exception could not be just for the one parcel. Mr. Watrous stated that Staff had recommended this as the best way to handle the change.
Commissioner Stein asked whether the other owners in the subdivision know this would change. Mr. Watrous said notices had been sent to those within 300 feet of the property and to the Homeowners Association. He stated that he had not received any comments. Mr. Stein said that as this affects all in the subdivision, that should be made clear to all. He asked if the notice went to all properties within 300 feet of the subdivision. Mr. Watrous said it did not.
Commissioner Klairmont said she wanted some review of the annexation process as she remembered some concerns at that time. Mr. Watrous said there was some dissatisfaction with the design review level of the homes. He was not aware of anything else. The 30% FAR was not dramatically different that the Tiburon requirement.
The discussion was opened to the public at 7:47 p.m.
William Strull, applicant, stated that he and his wife moved into the present property three years ago thinking it would allow them sufficient space for a family. At that time they had no children. Now they have two, his wife uses one bedroom for telecommuting, and grandparents often visit, so they find they would like more space. They propose using the undeveloped space under the garage to add 650 square feet for a playroom/den/guestroom and bath. This would have no impact on the neighbors and they have received no objections. The external footprint of the house has not changed, as the additional square footage is entirely within the mass. They had been guided by Mr. Watrous, as they had no preference as to how the application was done.
Deirdre McCrohan, The Ark, stated that she had an issue with the agenda, which is covered by the Brown Act. By referring to 70 Monterey Drive, the agenda does not reveal that this application affects the entire subdivision. She did not feel the description was sufficient to comply with the Brown Act, which should make sure the community as a whole finds out about projects and with enough specificity. She felt it was easy to assume that this change was just for 70 Monterey if the notice had not been read. This was a controversial subdivision when it was annexed. There may be people outside the subdivision that would be interested.
Discussion was closed to the public at 7:55 p.m.
Commissioner Stein said he did not agree that this project was similar to the Kuhn’s project on Stevens Court. That was for three units and what was being asked was unique to the one unit. This will affect 44 units. In addition to the aesthetics, there is the issue of making living space out of crawl space. He wondered whether they needed to mitigate against enclosing space or be mindful of setting a precedent.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that the FAR exceptions are granted if the visual size and scale are compatible with the neighborhood and the physical characteristics of the site. When there are no visual effects, the DRB usually approves the request. There could be privacy concerns about windows looking out on the neighbors. As to an increase in intensity of development, the General Plan does not address this. A larger house does not necessarily mean more people.
Commissioner Klairmont stated that she had looked at the house and had no problem with the application. There was no privacy issue and no change to the outside that the neighbors could see. It is increasing the level of development of the whole area, but for this house there is no problem. She felt everyone would watch so this project would not detract from their development and they can enhance their property.
Commissioner Stein said it seems that anytime there is extra crawl space, it is permissible to develop that space. Perhaps the Commission needs to assess the parking for that area. He wondered how people in the development felt about this project. He said it was not clear that they understood the scope of it.
Vice-Chair Slavitz said he remembered when this subdivision went through. Because it had a higher density, it was a contentious issue. If they could not have this much square footage then, how can they come back and add it now. He had a problem with a backdoor approach. Since it affects the whole subdivision, all property owners should be noticed. He noted that residents in Bel-Air had issues with this subdivision. He thought the project should be re-noticed to 300 feet around Cypress Hollow.
Commissioner Stein stated that he would like more data as to how many homes are actually affected by this. Vice-Chair Slavitz said they could assume it affects all 44 units.
Commissioner Klairmont wondered whether this applicant needed to bear the burden for the whole subdivision.
Commissioner Stein felt they needed to understand the impact of the whole.
Vice-Chair Slavitz said this would open the door for anyone in Tiburon to make this type of change.
Commissioner Stein wanted to know what was behind the FAR restrictions, whether the intent was to limit density and impact on schools, etc.
M/S Stein/Klairmont (3-0) to continue this item to the January 12, 2000 meeting to allow for re-noticing the full subdivision.
Mr. Strull added that they had not suggested changing the whole subdivision, and they hated to be responsible for any intrusion on the neighbors.
3. 4850 PARADISE DRIVE: PRE-ZONING OF 1.5 ACRES OF LAND TO RO-2 ZONE, FILE #R99-03; William & Eileen Baylis, owners and applicants; Assessor Parcel Nos. 38-053-01, 24.
Senior Planner Watrous explained that the owners have asked to be connected to the sewer district and need to be pre-zoned. The other lots in that area are zoned RO-2. He recommended adopting the resolution recommending approval to the Town Council.
Commissioner Stein asked about other zoning in that area. Mr. Watrous said RO-2 was most compatible with that area.
Vice-Chair Slavitz noted that this property was about 50,000 square feet and would most likely be subdivided. He wondered whether they should zone it RO-1 to avoid that. Mr. Watrous said they were trying to avoid "spot-zoning" and most of the homes already zoned around that property are RO-2.
Discussion was open to the public at 8:30 p.m.
Applicant Will Baylis stated that there is a riparian creek up the middle of lots 30 and 32, so it may not be developable.
Discussion was closed to the public at 8:31 p.m.
M/S Klairmont/Slavitz (3-0) to adopt the resolution recommending approval to the Town Council.
4. 160 SOLANO AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND A PROPOSED SECOND RESIDENCE INTO CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP, FILE #19906; Margaret May, owner; Assessor Parcel No. 59-142-12.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this was a request to convert an existing single-family dwelling and a proposed second single-family dwelling into a condominium form of ownership. There usually is not a lot of controversy with this type of conversion, but there has been some with this proposal. Since this has new construction, it has first gone to the Design Review Board. Ordinarily a condo conversion would come to the Planning Commission first if there is no new construction or remodeling involved. In this case, the DRB has determined the appropriate location for the new house and the compatibility with the neighborhood. The approval was appealed to the Town Council, which unanimously denied the appeal, upholding the approval. Since the Zoning Ordinance requires additional parking spaces, they will build a new two-car garage which will be in addition to two open parking spaces. He recommended adopting the resolution recommending approval.
Commissioner Stein was concerned about going first to DRB to request an additional unit on the property, while at the same time it was clear they wanted to make these condos. Mr. Watrous said the reason it went to the DRB first was because it involved new construction. It was presented as a second dwelling to be converted to condominium ownership. There were no concerns expressed by the DRB or the Town Council about the condo conversion.
Commissioner Stein asked if the Design Review Board was required to make findings concerning property use and whether it was located properly in the community. Mr. Watrous said certain findings regarding issues such as transportation were to be addressed by the Commission. The Town Council addressed whether the property could support two dwellings.
Commissioner Stein stated that he would like to see the Town Council minutes. He wondered how much they relied on the DRB findings, and whether the infrastructure supported the second dwelling. He wondered what the Planning Commission function was in this process.
Commissioner Klairmont asked whether the condo is the new structure and the existing house would remain a single-family house. Mr. Watrous said the new house and the old house would be converted to condos. This would be two separate detached homes on a 11,000 square foot lot with separate owners. Ms. Klairmont felt they should assume the second house was already built.
Commissioner Stein did not agree. He wondered about the impact of this house on traffic.
Vice-Chair Slavitz asked about the parking. Mr. Watrous said the driveway would be widened and parking would be satisfactory. Mr. Slavitz asked about whether this conversion depleted the rental housing stock. Mr. Watrous said usually condo conversions do displace rental stock with ownership. In this case, no tenants are being displaced and there is no depletion of rental stock. They are instead creating an additional unit.
Commissioner Stein took exception with referring to this as a condo conversion. He thought they were approving a new unit and wondered whether it was consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Watrous said they were not approving the second dwelling, as that had already been approved by the DRB. Vice-Chair Slavitz stated that all they were deciding was whether these two units could become condominiums or not.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:40 p.m.
Dolores Davis, applicant, stated that she and Mrs. May applied for this from the beginning as condominiums and have worked on the project together. There are no variances and they are below the FAR limit for this R-2 lot. The Town Council unanimously approved the project knowing that it was going to become condominiums. There are many units in the neighborhood with the same situation, so this is not uncommon.
Discussion was closed to the public at 8:45 p.m.
Commissioner Stein thought this was an odd process and had concerns that they had not seen the previous DRB record of this application. While the owner does have the right to build a second dwelling, and he had driven by and seen others that were the same, the project is in an area of Town that is stressed with parking problems. He had difficulty with this application and wanted to see what the Town Council had said about it.
Commissioner Klairmont stated that the Town Council had already approved the project, and this was before the Commission to decide whether it should be condos or private homes.
Commissioner Stein said the Planning Commission has some determinations to make, whether or not it is permissible for two condos on this lot. He was inclined to say it was not. He wondered what the Town Council determined, and noted that the home had not yet been built.
Vice-Chair Slavitz said the project had been approved and could be built. The question is not whether there can be two units, but whether one person or two can own them. He had no problem granting condominium ownership. The unit has already been approved, so it can be built.
Commissioner Klairmont noted that one neighbor had objected, but was not present. Commissioner Stein stated that the neighbors may have thought the process ended with the Town Council. Senior Planner Watrous stated that several members of the public spoke and many neighbors attended all the previous meetings. Those concerns were about view and privacy.
Vice-Chair Slavitz reiterated that all the Planning Commission was to decide was whether they would become condominiums.
Commissioner Stein said they were being asked to permit two condominiums. Just because the building had been approved, he was not sure that absolved them of the land-use issues. He thought they should revisit those issues. He was not sure the Town Council made the approval knowing there would be another opportunity for it to be looked at again.
Senior Planner Watrous agreed that they should not just rely on the fact that it was approved, but the Town Council said this was a good location and they are the body that would hear Planning Commission appeals. To summarize the Town Council ruling, they said this house in this location was compatible to the area and surrounding property, both as land use and as a dwelling.
Ms. Davis stated that the Town Council came to the site and reviewed the application and sat with the neighbors to explain the project. They dealt with all the issues and were fully aware. She was asked whether she would still build if it were not condominimized. She said the reason for doing this was to help Mrs. May save her home.
Vice-Chair Slavitz said that if it had come to the Planning Commission first, they may have had some questions, but he did not feel it was their job to reopen these issues.
M/S Slavitz/Klairmont (2-1) to adopt the resolution of approval as presented. Mr. Stein (opposing) stated he did not feel the infrastructure in Old Tiburon justified the intensity of the development and that it was a mistake to think the Planning Commission issues had been presented.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
//s//Jeffrey Slavitz
JEFFREY SLAVITZ, VICE-CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
//s//Scott Anderson
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
M991208