A.    ROLL CALL         PRESENT:        CHAIR STEIN, COMMISSIONERS BERGER, GREENBERG AND SNOW

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SMITH

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS NONE

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Staff Update

Commission Information items

D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. 103 REED RANCH ROAD; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING; Richard and Patricia De Nezza, property owners and applicants. Assessor’s Parcel No. 59-181-90. Continued to March 27, 2002

E PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. 3 OWLSWOOD ROAD; AMENDMENT TO OWLSWOOD WEST PRECISE PLAN; REQUEST TO ADJUST BUILDING ENVELOPE AND INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA FOR THE RESIDENCE AT 3 OWLSWOOD ROAD; William and Paula Upson, property owners; Al Vonderworth, applicant. Assessor’s Parcel No. 058-121-26. Denied (Motions to Approve and Deny Failed 2-2)

3. 2-98 NED’S WAY; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; REQUEST TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE; Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., owner and applicant. Assessor’s Parcel No. 058-151-35. Approved 4-0

F.    ADJOURNMENT 11:00 PM                                                                                                                  a022702

700 Tiburon Boulevard – March 13 Meeting

PLANNING COMMISSION

February 27, 2002

Regular Meeting

Town Council Chambers

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California 94920

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

Chairman Stein called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.

A.    ROLL CALL

Present: Chairman Stein, Commissioners Berger, Greenberg, and Snow

Absent: Commissioner Smith

Staff Present: Senior Planner Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch and Meeting

Recorder Hennessy

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS        There were none.

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous stating the Nextel application for renewal of their facility at the Belvedere Tennis Club is scheduled for the March 13^th meeting.

There being no objections, Chairman Stein moved Item 3 to the head of the agenda.

D.    PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.    2-98 NED’S WAY; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; REQUEST TO ALLOW A

TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE; Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., owner and applicant. Assessor Parcel No. 058-151-35.

Senior Planner Watrous outlined the request to move the Conditional Use Permit from the

sales office to one of the dwelling units at Chandler’s Gate property located at 2-98 Ned’s

Way; and the sales trailer would be removed. The unit will be restored to a residence after it

is finished as a sales office or no later than January 1, 2003. Staff recommends approval.

A representative of Taylor Woodrow Homes was present to answer questions.

Chairman Stein opened the public hearing.

In response to Commissioner Berger, Gary Gallindo, Taylor-Woodrow Homes, stated they would remove the sales trailer within a month of opening the new sales office.

Chairman Stein closed the public hearing.

E.    UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2.    103 REED RANCH ROAD; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING, Richard and Patricia DeNezza, property owners and Applicants. Assessor Parcel No. 59-181-90.

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the unfinished ground floor and loft space within an existing accessory structure into a secondary unit. This item was continued from the January 9, 2002 meeting, at which time the applicant was directed to redesign the unit to relocate the entry to the other side of the building and redesignand screen the parking area.

Senior Planner Watrous stated the applicant has presented plans showing the entry door has been relocated from the north side of the structure to the south side of the building, facing into the interior of the lot; the large living room window facing 105 Reed Ranch Road has been eliminated and both proposed parking spaces are now proposed to be located on the south (left) side of the existing driveway; additional landscaping has been proposed including a vegetable garden on the south side of the structure.

In response to Chairman Stein, Senior Planner Watrous explained that the existing building is a legal non-conforming structure; if built today, it would require a variance, however, it was built to code at the time.

In response to Commissioner Berger, Senior Planner Watrous explained the standard zoning requirement for a duplex is 1½ parking spaces per dwelling; secondary units require two parking spaces unless the Commission limits the unit to one car.

Mr. Watrous also explained the origin of the RO-1 and RO-2 zones and the minimum lot sizes.

Chairman Stein opened the public hearing.

The applicant, Dick DeNezza, reviewed the changes they had made in the project as outlined. He stated that Roto-Rooter had examined the sewer lines and stated a 4" line is more than adequate to handle the existing house and apartment. He stated that the existing window will not change in size, but will change the louvered window to a glass block. The only other exterior modification proposed was that an existing double door will be changed to a single door. Henoted the size of the driveway has not changed and is composed of concrete with pebbles and has sufficient space for four cars measuring 18 feet by 9 feet per car.  In response to Commissioner Greenberg’s concerns about privacy issues, Mr. DeNezza stated the window would be distorted glass.Allan Balmain, 105 Reed Ranch Road, requested additional screening of the parking area. He also questioned the Town’s housing policy to include secondary units in a single family area, and asked whether there was a limitation on the number of units per neighborhood.Stewart Foreman, 104 Reed Ranch Road, objected to the proposal and changing their neighborhood into multi-family dwellings. He reminded the Commission that there was a virtually unanimous objection from the neighbors to convert a single-family neighborhood into a multi-family neighborhood. He noted many of these homes had detached garages that could be converted into secondary units and felt that issue should be addressed before a CEQA exemption is allowed. In addition, he requested the CUP be revoked if the house is sold so that new owners would have to reapply so the neighbors would know who lived there and there would not be two rental units.

Lynne Wellman Barr, 4 Via Capistrano, wanted reassurance that everyone in the neighborhood would be allowed to create secondary dwelling units if this project was approved, and wanted the a guarantee that she could construct a secondary unit. She asked if the Commission could limit the number of people in the unit and tell people where to park.

Chairman Stein closed the public meeting.

Senior Planner Watrous explained that Conditional Use Permits are handled on a case by case basis, if the Commission some time in the future felt there were too many applications for secondary dwelling units in a neighborhood, the request could be denied. He noted there are only 20-30 secondary units throughout the Town and there is an annual review to make sure the owners are still residents.

After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that significant steps had not been taken in the direction the Commission had indicated at the last meeting with regards to the parking area; the additional two cars need to be screened from view from across the street and in that position they would not block access to the house. A much more sophisticated and extensiveredesign of the parking area is needed to make the application acceptable. The consensus of the Commission was that this accessory dwelling unit would not create any visual impacts and would not degrade the neighborhood.

Commissioner Greenberg noted that secondary units are not "affordable housing" by definition, but the rents are significantly less expensive because of the smaller size, and these units therefore provide additional diversity for the town. She also noted that the Town can limit the number of people who occupy a second unit, and require two off street parking spaces, but people can park wherever they want on public streets. She requested that language be inserted in the draft resolution that indicates the replacement window not be clear glass.

Chair Stein stated that there is no guarantee that the approval of one secondary dwelling unit would not lead to the approval of others in the neighborhood. He raised questions about the issue of zoning compliance with the existing structure.

There was a brief discussion regarding the philosophy of the Housing Element and the secondary dwelling unit policy and it was decided this could be a future agenda item.

In response to the Commission, Mr. DeNezza stated they would agree to an extension of the Permit Streamlining Act deadlines and return with revised parking plans.

M/S Berger, Snow, passed 4-0 to continue this item to the meeting of March 27, 2002.

There was a recess at 9 P.M. with the Commission reconvening at 9:15 P.M.

Associate Planner Lynch reviewed the Staff report and the request for an amendment to the Precise Plan, including a floor area ratio increase and expansion of the building envelope. The Staff report gave an historical review of the property. The applicant received a Precise Plan and Design Review approval in 1991 and 1992. Mr. Lynch outlined the current application which asked for as-built approval of a balcony enclosure on the east side of the residence, a bedroom conversion in the lower area which increased the floor area, and a retaining wall on the south side of the property which has been constructed 4 feet outside the approved building envelope. He noted a temporary occupancy permit had been issued, however, a final approval was never issued.

In response to Commissioner Berger, Mr. Lynch stated the theater area has not been deemed as habitable space because of the ceiling height. Commissioner Berger disagreed because it is a stepped space and thought that approximately 200 square feet should be included in the FAR calculation.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Lynch stated these additions were built at the same time as the house in 1993 but without approval.

Chairman Stein opened the public hearing.

Al Vonderworth, builder, representing the owners, reviewed the series of events which occurred during construction of the house. He stated when the scotch broom was removed they discovered a slide and he discussed the problem with the building department and they said he could move the retaining wall out. At the same time there was a lot of discussion regarding EMT fields and the meter was near their daughter’s bedroom, and he said that the Building Department approved moving the meter. He also said that he asked if he could add the roof and skylight at the balcony enclosure and was told that he could. Staff agreed to provide them with a temporary occupancy permit; at that time, they thought the only outstanding issue involved the slide. He stated the building department told him he had to install the window for the downstairs bedroom so he did.

The Commission questioned how he could change use of space and increase levels of square footage without written approvals from the Design Review Board, the Building Department or without an amendment to the Precise Plan, especially since specific requests for increased floor area had been made the previous year and denied. Mr. Vonderworth responded that he believed he had received permission from the Building Department for each and every change he had made.

Commissioner Berger questioned whether the changes intensified the use of the property or changed the mass and bulk of the house, and whether the retaining wall changed the impact on the neighbors. He felt that the changes did not appreciably affect the mass and bulk of the house, and the retaining wall would not impact neighbors.

Commissioner Greenberg noted the Town Council Resolution in 1990 made findings that an increase to the square footage of this house was not acceptable. She noted that the Precise Plan included strict requirements for this house, and she did not want to send a message to the community that the way to get what you want is to go build it and then pay a penalty.

Chairman Stein asked for an explanation of the square footage as it appears on the Building Permit. Mr. Lynch explained that the Building Official probably did not look at the living space requirements; he was probably working off submitted plans and not the approved Design Review plans.

Commissioner Berger noted it is the responsibility of the architect and builder to design a violation free submittal; if the Building Official misses something, that does not make it legal.

There was a brief discussion regarding the fine and penalty procedure. There was more discussion with regards to definitions of habitable and uninhabitable space.

Chairman Stein reviewed the Commission’s choices: (1) insist the structure conform to the Precise Plan, (2) approve the changes but apply an appropriate fine, or (3) assume builder did not do anything wrong. Chairman Stein noted that the decision the Commission makes has to maintain the integrity of the planning process.

The Commission discussed the possibility of the Town’s culpability and noted a member of the Planning Staff had signed off on the building permit.

Mr. Lynch noted that Building Official Dean Bloomquist had submitted all his records and the information was included in the memorandum presented that evening; Staff did not feel a continuance would result in additional information presented to the Commission.

Mr. Watrous stated he has spoken with the Building Department and Mr. Vonderworth and attempted to reconstruct what happened. He did not think anyone on the existing staff had a firm idea of how this happened. Something apparently went wrong in the process, but beyond that, it is very difficult to do anything but speculate. He said that Mr. Vonderworth’s testimony is not substantiated in the administrative record. The main issue at this time is that planning approvals were never granted for the building changes, and the question is whether or not approvals be granted based on information presented to the Commission.

The Commission discussed their options, which included a resolution recommending approval to the Town Council for a Precise Plan amendment, or denial of the application.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Watrous stated the Commission had the ability to disagree with the decision made by the Town Council ten years ago to deny a Precise Plan amendment.

Commissioner Greenberg noted the additional bedroom implies the potential for an extra occupant and possibly an extra car; it intensifies the use. This site, and Owlswood Road, would not accommodate more parking. Commissioner Snow stated he did not think the usage of the house would increase but was concerned that other property owners might see this as a potential to increase their houses.

Chairman Stein stated he was prepared to go along with a revocation but not a complete revocation.

Commissioner Greenberg speculated as to what uninhabitable space was present in other houses in the subdivision, and was concerned that the Commission could be looking at tearing up the Precise Development Plan.

Motion failed.

Mr. Watrous noted that a failure to pass a Resolution recommending approval of the application results in a denial. The applicant may appeal the decision of the Commission to the Town Council.

F.    ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.

______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

 ATTEST:

 _________________________________

DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY