PLANNING COMMISSION

January 9, 2002

Regular Meeting

Town Council Chambers

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

******************************************************************************

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Stein, Commissioners Berger, Greenberg, Smith and Snow

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Senior Planner Watrous and Meeting Recorder Flanagan

OATH OF OFFICE

Senior Planner Watrous administered the oath of office to new Commissioner Randy Greenberg.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

There were none.

COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous stated that there are no items scheduled for the January 23, 2002 meeting, and suggested that the meeting be canceled unless an issue arises at this meeting. In response to questions, he stated a tentative date had supposedly been set to erect story poles for Martha Place, but the story poles have not yet been erected.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001

Changes include:

Page 3, first paragraph, beginning line 4, to read, "…existing envelope. It is not an activity space. If the side window were eliminated, he felt that it becomes a benign addition.

Line 4 to read, "He would not encourage an activity area on the deck and would not approve expansion of the building envelope."

Page 3, fourth paragraph, second line to read, "should be flexible to allow change to adapt to owners’ needs."

Page 4, paragraph 4, add a last sentence, "The two buildings were many times further apart than the Town minimums."

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. 103 REED RANCH ROAD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. Richard and Patricia DeNezza, owners; Mark Groody, applicant. Assessor Parcel No. 38-312-05.

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the staff report. In response to questions, he stated that parking would consist of one car on either side of the garage or two on one side of the garage, in addition to the two spaces in the garage. Construction would stay within the existing building envelope. The floor area currently exists as an accessory building space and no additional floor area is created. Regarding the small, opaque, louvered window, the house was built when the property was in the County and there are no records that might explain the window. He noted that there are no secondary units in the immediate vicinity. He stated that the existing nonconforming side yard setback for the accessory building could either be interpreted as not being in compliance with the current zoning standards, or could be viewed as a legal nonconforming structure that does not involve new construction.

Richard DeNezza, owner, described his proposal. Regarding the sewage concerns of his neighbor, he will hire a professional to assess the situation and if an upgrade is required, he will see that the upgrade is made. He feels the site does not need an expanded apron since parking is substantial. He said that he did not believe that the opaque window was installed to provide privacy to the uphill neighbor. He noted that the uphill neighbor had installed a bay window, to which Mr. DeNezza objected. He has lived in the house for 22 years and the window was opaque when he purchased the property. The distance between the proposed unit and house on the neighboring lot, which is on a steep incline, is at least 40 feet, with an elevation difference of 30 feet. Mr. DeNezza is willing to install latticework and flowing vine above the wall with low shrubs between the walkway and wall to lessen any impacts on the uphill neighbor.

Commissioner Berger asked if he anticipates that any planting would have to be removed to provide access to the front door. Mr. DeNezza responded that no vegetation would be removed. He would probably replace the gate to make the area more attractive. He now has two cars, which could fit into the garage. His children used the living area of the accessory building as a family room; they did not live there. The current dog run will be landscaped with shrubs and it will be the entrance to the second unit. He felt that the primary entrance was more logically placed on the outside face of the building, rather than facing the interior of the site, because there is currently a walkway and gate in the outside area. He anticipates the unit will be a rental unit.

The public comment period was opened.

Liz Wilman Barr, 4 Via Capistrano, voiced her concern about the sewer line for the proposed secondary dwelling unit. She would like an employee from the Sanitary District to inspect it and determine if the line will be adequate. She has had problems with the line before, and perhaps a bigger line is required with this additional dwelling.

Ian Altman, One Mariposa Court, chair of the architectural committee for Reed Ranch Road Homeowners Association, stated that there were seventeen homes built in his subdivision after the house on the subject property; he said that there was ill will from the then-current neighborhood when his development was built. He said that the committee has concerns about the parking for this project. He felt that the proposal would not affect others’ property values and the precedent of secondary housing in this area is inappropriate. A rental unit would not be allowed within his homeowners association. He is concerned ill will between the two communities could begin again.

Allan Balmain, 105 Reed Ranch Road, stated that this a one-bedroom rental will not address the Town’s housing concerns. The dwelling would be visible to his uphill home, and would change the character of the area. Regarding parking, he felt that it is not realistic to expect four cars to be able to park on the property, and would result in at least one car parking in the street. Regarding privacy, the entry door would be twelve feet from his property line and some 40 feet from his house. There may well be noise from people only twelve feet away from his property. His main living area and bedroom face this unit. He objected to having a rental unit next door. If this unit were approved, he would like due consideration given to the privacy issue.

David Louis, 21 North Terrace, stated this proposal would change the character of the neighborhood. He bought property in the area because there were no rental units. Traffic and speeding are concerns in this area. He felt that the worst offenders are renters, who have no ties to the community and do not have children. He said that this is a community of children. While Mr. DeNezza’s property value would be increased by this project, he felt that this would decrease the value of other properties. He thought that a rental property in this area is not warranted.

Mr. DeNezza agreed that speeding is a problem, but he said that those who speed live above him. He feels any renter in Tiburon is not the type who would degrade the community.

There being no further comments, the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Smith stated that he is concerned the privacy problem would be shifted to the uphill neighbor; he thought the entry might be placed on the other side of the building. The height difference between this structure and the neighbor’s house makes screening difficult. Parking may be a significant concern; people often use their garage for storage and onstreet parking is not desired.

Commissioner Snow stated that he is concerned with the entry into the side yard; a patio could be built near the proposed entrance, encouraging outdoor use. He felt the entrance should face the middle of the property.

Commissioner Berger noted that people recognize the value of rental units. Homogeneous neighborhoods are a mistake; a mixture of people and incomes is a positive factor in a healthy community. He did not think that this dwelling unit would degrade the neighbors’ rights if properly designed. The Balmains’ house is far above this project and the Balmains’ trees would screen the unit. His concern is the parking; a parking lot in a residential area is inappropriate, as is parking on the street. He would move the entry of the unit to the other side of the building and relocate the parking to a more screened area.

Commissioner Greenberg stated she supports second units in principle. She does have a concern, however, when a neighbor is impacted and not the applicant. Sitting in the proposed living room, one could look into the Balmains’ bay windows, and if the side yard is used, the Balmains’ privacy would be impacted. Windows upstairs in the bedroom will look at the Balmains’ house. She felt that the entry should be into the courtyard. Parking also is a concern; she thought that the number of people in the unit should be limited to reduce the number of cars. Landscape plans should be submitted for the side yard.

Chair Stein asked, if the zoning ordinance would allow the owner to move from the principal place of residence after renting the unit. Senior Planner Watrous responded that the ordinance requires the owner must maintain his/her principal place of residence on the property. The intent is to encourage one property owner and a renter rather than two rentals on a property.

Chair Stein added that there is an assumption that if the owner rents a unit and lives onsite, he/she will be concerned about negative activities and control them. With two renters and no owner onsite, there may be less control by the owner. He said that the application stretches the limits of the ordinance. The building is already within the side yard setback, and he thought that parking is a real problem. He added that there is a question of how the General Plan is interpreted regarding secondary units and affordable housing. He has not heard the applicant indicate the rent will be affordable. If the unit were to be a truly affordable rental unit, it would be a different story.

Commissioner Berger stated he agrees that rentals do not necessarily imply affordability. The design of the proposed dwelling unit and the current rental market would indicate this to be at a middle-income rental level.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated the owner could rent out the house and live in the secondary unit.

Commissioner Smith stated he also would require a landscape plan. He agreed that the entrance should be moved to the other side, and occupancy should be limited to two people or the number of vehicles allowed should be restricted. The size of the window that faces the uphill neighbor should not be enlarged.

Chair Stein stated parking is his concern also; this project would result in four cars parking on a large asphalt lot.

Commissioner Berger stated he would like to believe that room could be made for the parking spaces that does not block the gate and the garage doors. Screening should be increased to hide the cars.

Commissioner Smith felt that a viable plan exists and comments by Commissioners were made to modify the design; therefore, he would recommend a continuance if the applicant is willing to make these modifications.

Commissioner Berger stated requirements should include an adequate landscape plan; obtaining a will serve letter from the sanitary district; relocation of the entrance so as to not impact the uphill neighbor; redesign of the parking to provide additional screening and capacity; reducing the size of the living room window; and a limit of two people in the unit. He added, this is a slight intensification of use.

Chair Stein cautioned he would find it difficult to approve the proposal even with the revisions.

Commissioner Smith said that if the application were to be continued, a criterion is whether the project is viable, and he feels it is.

M/S, Berger/Snow, passed 5-0, to continue this item to February 13, 2002.

3. 2120 MAR EAST STREET; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A PIER AND BOAT DOCK. Fani and Gary Hansen, owners and applicants. Assessor’s Parcel No. 59-181-90.

Senior Planner Watrous introduced the project.

Fani Hansen, applicant, discussed the project. In response to questions, she stated the float could accommodate one small boat. The float would be anchored by four piers, with no lateral movement. The boat lift would go to the top of the existing wall. Her tenants will have the right to use the pier. At low tide, the walkway extension would have an angle of 30 degrees. She said that the dock was located in consideration of neighbors’ views. The pier parallels the sea wall and existing dock next door. She said that it would be difficult to see into the next door neighbor’s bedroom windows from the pier because the pier is low.

Gary Hansen, applicant, discussed the necessity of the float, which will allow docking a boat in adverse conditions.

Commissioner Berger asked if the pier could be placed closer to the center of the property where it would more quickly reach deeper water. Mr. Hansen stated the pier is located near the existing wall to minimize the impact. To shorten the pier, it should go to the far other side of the property. The property lines into the water are at an angle. He said a float would still be needed.

The public comment period was opened.

Jerry Denz, 2130 Mar East Street, stated he objects to the project because of the loss of his view, loss of privacy and diminished quality of life. He felt that the project is not compatible with other existing docks because of the floating dock. He said that the location of the proposed pier would deny him personal access to the bay. His access to the beach is from retractable stairs from his dock and the pier would not allow his access. His view is to the south, where applicants want to locate the dock. The proposed location does not affect the applicants’ view, but he distributed photographs from his bedroom and living room, and stated the float is directly in his view. The steel piling would be 24 inches in diameter and there would be four pilings, which will be in his view as will the ramp to the float. He stated that there is a loss of privacy from the float, from which users can look back into his bedroom. The recreational use will allow talking, engine noise, etc., to be heard from his bedroom, which would affect his quality of life. Any lighting will distract from his nighttime view of the bay. He thought that the pier should be constructed on the other side of the property. He also noted that the Hansens could keep their boat at a marina or yacht club. He said that two previous floating dock structures were destroyed by winter storms. He asked that the application be denied, or that the pier be moved to the other side of the lot where only the applicants’ view would be impacted and the pier would be closer to deep water.

Janet Freeberg, 2105 Mar East Street, stated the proposed dock would be in their remaining view corridor; she said the dock would be visible from their porch, living and dining room, after the Hansens’ house is constructed She stated that their enjoyment of the natural environment would be reduced by the dock.

Sam Haddad, 115 Solano Street, stated he is not directly impacted by the dock and pier. In 25 years, however, he has never seen such a deck in Lyford Cove. His concern is noise from the water. He saw the dock from the Denz’s home, and he thought that the dock should be moved to the other side of the property or not be approved.

Cheryl Guheen, 2218 Mar East Street, stated she would like to see some visual beauty of the beach on the cove. She said that there are many ways to use the water without a long and flat pier.

Dana Aber, 2100 & 2102 Mar East Street, stated the pier would be too long and would not fit in with the cove. He noted that storms can be harsh along this portion of the peninsula, and have damaged docks in this area. He felt that a floating dock could be dangerous for many people in a storm.

Ms. Hansen stated that the existing wall is on the property line. There would be no exterior lighting. She and her husband are quiet people and they would not bother neighbors while accessing the boat. Regarding the ladder prohibiting the Denzs’ access to the beach, she stated that there is ten feet under the pier, under which the Denzs can walk to the beach. She said that there are many piers in Belvedere which have weathered worse storm effects. She does not understand how residents at 2105 Mar East Street and 115 Solano Street can see the float.

There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed.

Chair Stein noted that BCDC’s language refers to public access, and any use of water is a far stretch from "encouraging public access".

Commissioner Greenberg stated that the current standard in this area is not having boats in the water. Other approved docks are low profile. Access to the bay by docks is not always the best; the bay serves the homes in other ways. She said that this proposal would set a new standard; if this is approved there will be other applications of this sort. A floating dock creates potential noise and privacy issues for nearby homes. She noted that this dock and float would have the potential to serve multiple boats. The application would impact neighbors more than the applicant, and there are alternative solutions.

Commissioner Snow stated that at first glance, the location of the dock appeared to be appropriate. However, the 14 foot tall pilings for the floating dock would be a visual nuisance. He felt that the project would also have privacy Impacts on neighbors.

Commissioner Berger stated that he viewed the story poles from the Denz’s home. He said that the float would be in the center of their view. A sailboat with mast moored at the dock would also be in their view. Other docks of other types have been approved in the vicinity, and if this were a similar design and would not affect neighbors, he would approve the project. The pier, if moved to the other side or the center of the property, could be shorter in length. He felt that the dock should not be so prominently in the viewline of the neighbors, and that all alternatives have not yet been explored.

Chair Stein stated that the approval of other docks in the vicinity has been consistent. This dock appears to be inconsistent with these principles.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated the Commission has made comments with which to provide the applicant sufficient direction for the project. He summarized that the Commission recommends a shorter pier, further to the right of the property, with fewer visual impacts to the neighbors and no float.

Commissioner Berger added, the Planning Commission is generally comfortable with the water access, but not the location and design of the pier and float dock.

Ms. Hansen asked if a float dock is allowed in Tiburon. Chair Stein responded that a float is not acceptable at this location. However, if the whole assembly projected a lot less, it could be acceptable. He clarified that the Planning Commission does not approve of the long pier. What has been approved in similar locations should be considered. If this does not work for the applicants, they may wish to rethink their plans.

Commissioner Smith suggested the applicant look at piers that were recently approved as viable examples.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

 ATTEST:

  ____________________________

DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY