1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Stein, Commissioners Fredericks, Snow, Smith, Berger

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous and Recording Secretary Morales

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS  None.

Planning Director Anderson noted that the Yom Kippur holiday was September 26, 2001, which is the same day of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, and asked the Commission to consider a cancellation at the end of the agenda.

D.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS    There were none.

Commissioner Berger arrived at 7:43 P.M.

1.    MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2001 M/S Smith/Berger to approve as corrected.

Corrections: Page 5, seventh paragraph – Rewrite to read "Commissioner Smith said that cumulative impact is an important issue. Commissioner Smith stressed that every attempt should be made to determine the impact of the project in relation to other proposed projects affecting Paradise Drive." Page 5, tenth paragraph – add a phrase at the end of the paragraph to read "with respect to the maximum allowable grading". Page 10, last paragraph – rewrite to read "Commissioner Smith commented that the developer has lowered the structures in an effort . . ." Page 11, sixth paragraph – Delete the word "suggested". Page 12, seventh paragraph – Replace the word "be" with "the".

Commissioner Berger found the minutes to be excellent.

Senior Planner Watrous summarized the proposed amendment as set forth in the staff report.

In response to Commissioner Berger, Senior Planner Watrous stated that the Town only requires two off-street parking spaces for single family residences. Senior Planner Watrous also confirmed that the proposal complies with the Town’s building envelope requirements for this property.

The hearing was opened to public comment.

Geoffrey Butler, applicant/architect, clarified that the garage door will not be replaced with a bay window as indicated in the Staff report. He also noted that unlike the examples cited by Staff, the proposed family room addition was only 117 square feet, which is minor and would not create mass and bulk impacts. Mr. Butler concluded by presenting photo montages depicting the proposed addition.

In response to Commissioner Smith, Senior Planner Watrous clarified that the total square footage to be enclosed is 134 square feet. Senior Planner Watrous also stated that although there are CC&Rs in place for this development, CC&Rs are enforced by the Homeowners Association and not the Town.

There being no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was closed to public comment.

While Commissioner Fredericks was concerned that the proposed addition was not within the existing footprint as the examples cited by Staff, she recognized that the topography of the property was different, the addition would not be visible from the street, and no comments have been received from neighbors. Expressing concern regarding the potential increase in intensity, Commissioner Fredericks noted that even if findings for an exception can be made, the exception does not necessarily have to be granted.

Senior Planner Watrous clarified that the issue before the Commission was an amendment to the Precise Plan, not a floor area ratio exception. The information cited in the Staff report was simply an analogy of how the Commission could evaluate the proposal in a traditionally-zoned residential area.

Commissioner Fredericks was concerned that the existing study, which was next to a full bath, could easily be converted into a bedroom when the garage was converted into a study. She felt there was a potential increase in intensity of use that should be considered. She felt that there was a potential increase in intensity of use that should be considered.

Commissioner Berger supported the proposal because he found the conversion of a one-car garage to living space minimal given that the other two garage spaces and additional apron spaces meet the Town’s parking requirements. Recognizing that approval of the subject project could set a precedent in the Cypress Hollow Subdivision, Commissioner Berger noted that projects are to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The hearing was reopened to public comment.

James Brown, property owner, clarified that there were only three properties in the subject development, including his, which had a freestanding one-car garage in addition to a two-car garage.

The hearing was closed to public comment.

Chair Stein stated that although the request is not a concern from a design review standpoint, he found it hard to differentiate this property from others in the subdivision. He thought that it might be more appropriate to amend the Precise Plan for the entire subdivision, rather than the individual modification currently proposed.

Commissioner Snow noted that the Town might not be aware of unpermitted garage conversions in the subdivision. He felt that this particular request was no a concern, as the proposed additions were small in scale and there were no issues with neighbors.

Commissioner Berger wanted the amendment to be more narrowly construed, with no tacit approvals for other garage conversions in the subdivision.

Chair Stein felt that there was a need to be intellectually honest about the application; if there were no way to differentiate this application from others in the subdivision, this request would be hard to approve. He did think that the fact that the one-car garage is separate from the other two garage spaces was a physical difference that could provide the necessary differentiation. He pointed out that the notice for this request did not address the possibility of a subdivision-wide amendment to the Precise Plan, and that any such request would require subsequent notification.

Commissioner Smith did not like the piecemeal approach to granting amendments. Specific criteria would be needed to approve this amendment, similar to the criteria used on the two previous amendments to this Precise Plan. He felt that the request was consistent with the criteria used to evaluate floor area exceptions and other Design Review applications, but did not meet the criteria used for the other Precise Plan amendments. He thought that the applications for other amendments could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Commissioner Berger said that the Commission was not ready to evaluate an amendment that would affect the whole subdivision.

The consensus of the Commission was to add distinguishing criteria to the draft resolution, noting that the subject house has separate one-car and two-car garages, and that there is no neighbor opposition to this request.

Section 1(F) – Clarify that the requested addition would not significantly add to the mass and bulk.

Section 1(G) – Add a new finding stating that this amendment was granted in part because there was no neighborhood opposition and because of the distinguishing characteristic of the freestanding one-car garage in addition to the two-car garage.

3.    DOWNTOWN TIBURON DESIGN GUIDELINES: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON A DRAFT DOWNTOWN DESIGN HANDBOOK. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS TEXT AND GRAPHICS SETTING FORTH GOALS, BASIC DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE THREE DISTINCT DISTRICTS THAT COMPRISE DOWNTOWN TIBURON; NAMELY, MAIN STREET, ARK ROW (UPPER MAIN STREET), AND THE TIBURON BOULEVARD CORRIDOR. THE HANDBOOK PROVIDES DIRECTION TO PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS, ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS, TOWN STAFF AND OFFICIALS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES WHO MAKE DECISIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTING DOWNTOWN TIBURON. THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN HANDBOOK IS DIRECTIVE AND SUGGESTIVE, BUT DOES NOT CONTAIN MANDATORY STANDARDS TYPICAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, REVIEW THE HANDBOOK AND FORWARD ITS COMMENTS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL

Planning Director Anderson summarized the background information and analysis conducted for the preparation of the Downtown Design Guidelines, as set forth in the staff report.

The hearing was opened to public comment.

Gus Strotz, concerned resident, commended staff and the steering committee for the time and effort spent on the preparation of the draft document. Recognizing that the document is simply a guideline, he was concerned that this matter may not have been adequately noticed, and that too few copies are available for public review. Therefore, he suggested that broader notice to the public be provided prior to forwarding the document to the Town Council. He concluded by commenting on some specific concerns with the document, i.e., specificity of construction materials, and the actual location of the "center of Downtown".

Bob Treiber, downtown business owner, concurred with the comments of Mr. Strotz.

Steve Sears, member of the Downtown Guidelines Steering Committee, somewhat agreed with the concerns raised. Commenting on the process for the preparation of the document, which lasted approximately two years, he agreed that it would be beneficial to further publicize the document and make it more available for public review and comment.

Fani Hansen, concerned resident and business owner, concurred with the concern raised regarding the lack of adequate public review.

In response to Commissioner Smith, Planning Director Anderson explained that the legal notice was published three weeks before this hearing, and that in addition to the property owners’ list, courtesy notices were sent to the entire Chamber of Commerce mailing list. He also clarified that in addition to this hearing, this matter would be considered by the Design Review Board at its September 6^th meeting, and on October 3^rd by the Town Council.

The hearing was closed to public comment.

Commissioner Berger agreed that additional public notice was necessary. Commenting on the process for generating the document, Commissioner Berger stated that the purpose of the Guidelines was to provide a clear, but general direction for business owners. He then made the following comments regarding the document: 1) the illustration drawings for buildings on Main Street should be modified in their text to clarify that these are suggestions for restoration of historically-significant buildings, and not a recipe for giving new buildings a historic appearance; and 2) minimize the emphasis given to the Belvedere Land Company Building as a "model" for future buildings in the Downtown.

Commissioner Snow asked whether night lighting should be addressed in the Guidelines.

Commissioner Smith found the document acceptable. However, he agreed that public input was essential and therefore broader noticing would be beneficial. He suggested that this matter be continued in order to allow the public adequate review time.

Commissioner Fredericks stated that it appeared that the people most affected did not have adequate time to review the document and were not present. Therefore, she supported allowing business owners another opportunity to review the document.

Mr. Sears agreed that broader noticing was necessary. However, he noted that since most business owners did not own the buildings, continuing this matter would only bring in another three or four people; only a few people owned the buildings in the downtown area.

Chair Stein commented on some of the positive aspects of the document, i.e., discussion regarding the need for clear pedestrian access in the Main Street Parking Lot. He also questioned whether the Guidelines should contemplate creating a "Town Center", and how the document would fit into the overall concept of the downtown area. He supported forwarding the document onto the Design Review Board with the understanding that additional public noticing will be provided and specific comments from Commissioners addressed.

Commissioner Berger reiterated the fact that similar to the Hillside Design Guidelines, the Downtown Design Guidelines would help frame discussion more than leading down a narrow path of design. The Downtown Guidelines would allow a wide range of design emphasizing "compatibility" with existing designs for new buildings.

After discussing the most appropriate approach, the Commission agreed to proceed with the process as scheduled and forward the document on to the Design Review Board and Town Council, but directed staff to make the following modifications:

Page 10 – Add language to emphasize that the specific illustrations were drawn for restoration of historic structures. For new structures, the Guidelines should emphasize "compatibility", not 'imitation". Revise to read "Replication or emulation of design elements for other periods outside the period of historical significance in new construction is inappropriate."

Page 14 – Revise to read ". . . 34 Main Street and historic period structure".

Page 17 – Revise to read ". . . brick, masonry, and "concrete".

Page 46 – Statements similar to "design roofs with little or no overhang" should be avoided.

Lighting should be specifically addressed. Consider having it under a separate heading.

Emphasis on the Belvedere Land Company building appearance is overdone. Consider eliminating one of the three illustrations featuring it.

The Commission also directed staff to provide broader public noticing and make more copies of the handbook available to the public.

M/S Fredericks/Berger (5-0) to recommend to the Town Council formal adoption of the Handbook with modifications as listed above.

ADJOURNMENT

The Commission canceled its meeting of September 26, 2001 due to a conflict with Yom Kippur.

Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m. 

______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIRMAN

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST: 

_________________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY