Staff Update

Commission Information Items

1.    1860 VISTAZO WEST STREET; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT; James Peterson, owner; Timothy Peterson and David Thompson, applicants; Assessor’s Parcel Number 059-071-06.           CONTINUED TO 6/22/02 (4-0)

2.    41 MAIN STREET; REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN APPROVED 6,740 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT THE SITE OF THE FORMER TIBURON TOMMIE’S RESTAURANT; Doris Caceres Trust, owner; Ron Caceres, applicant; Assessor’s Parcel Number 059-151-04                        CONTINUED TO 5/22/02 (4-0)

E.    ADJOURNMENT 9:30 PM a050802

PLANNING COMMISSION

May 8, 2002

Regular Meeting

Town Council Chambers

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL

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

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous and Meeting Recorder Flanagan

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

There were none.

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Director Anderson noted that the publication, "Smart Infill" prepared by the Greenbelt Alliance and distributed earlier to the Commission, may be useful relative to the upcoming housing element update.

1860 VISTAZO WEST STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT; James Peterson, owner; Timothy Peterson and David Thompson, applicants; Assessor’s Parcel No. 059-071-06.

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the staff report. He noted concerns about how the parking spaces could be used simultaneously, and that the architect has submitted as late mail illustrations showing how the turning movements would work in the parking area. He indicated that the focus of the Planning Commission’s review should be determining if parking is adequate for this project. In response to questions, he stated the owner intends to occupy the house as a main residence. The Design Review Board has not yet seen this item.

Commissioner Greenberg voiced her concern that approval of the Conditional Use Permit might create difficulty for the Design Review Board’s review and decision making.

The public hearing was opened.

Tim Peterson, applicant, discussed the project and stated it centers around his desire for a small house for his mother and for him to live on the site of the home his family has owned for many years.

David Thompson, architect, noted that the site makes it difficult to create a driveway that meets Fire Department requirements. He said that the proposed open parking space can accommodate a full-sized SUV. In response to questions, he stated that the grade of the driveway will be eighteen percent, which the Fire Department has indicated meets code requirements. The current driveway grade is over 25 percent. The house is currently occupied. The current floor area of the current combined units is 1,000 square feet, plus the shed.

Mel Ronick, 347 Ridge Road, asked if this is the appropriate opportunity to request removal of trees on the site. Chair Stein advised that this concern should be addressed at the Design Review Board hearing.

Jim Horan, 345 Ridge Road, noted that a second unit would mean additional cars driving up the hill. He said that there is no visual impact to him as he cannot see the story poles.

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

Commissioner Snow stated, after visiting the site, the importance of keeping cars off the street as much as possible became apparent. He felt that the Town is missing the opportunity to require a four-car garage as part of the project.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that, as a matter of policy, she supports second units, but this project is problematic. Parking is inadequate and there is no on-street parking available for this site. The site must provide all parking for guests and residents. She is concerned that the building plans may violate the Hillside Design Guidelines. Approving a Conditional Use Permit, as envisioned, would possibly create insurmountable problems for the Design Review Board in its review of the house and secondary dwelling unit. She felt that there is no way to approve the parking situation as currently proposed.

Commissioner Smith stated he also supports second units in concept. He said that the project does not meet the criteria to reduce parking to only three spaces, rather than four, on the site. He thought that there is a viable solution, though not what is presented tonight. If the second unit is approved, this could create a disservice to the Design Review Board. The parking issue should be solved at the Planning Commission level before going to the Design Review Board.

Chair Stein concurred the Planning Commission should solve the parking component of the project. The current proposal does not adequately address parking; yet, there is enough property to accomplish this. He said that appears to be an inefficiency to the process in reviewing this application prior to the Design Review Board. If the Conditional Use Permit is approved now, it would create a very strong presumption that the overall design of the project is acceptable. He believed that a significantly smaller structure might be a better choice.

Commissioner Smith stated there are significant Design Review issues relative to this project apart from what is included in the subject application. He felt that some level of redesign would be likely even if the Planning Commission approved this application.

Commissioner Snow stated that as parking is addressed by this application, other Design Review issues may also be addressed.

Chair Stein stated he has genuine concerns about the second unit because of the lack of on-site and on-street parking. He noted that this stretch of Vistazo West Street is not double-striped and only one side of the street is used for parking; if a car is parked on the street, it is difficult for two cars to pass. He asked if the Planning Commission felt that there are parking concerns that would make the Commission deny a Conditional Use Permit for a secondary dwelling unit.

Commissioner Smith noted secondary dwelling units are a mechanism for affordable housing. There needs to be enough legitimate parking to serve a house and a second unit. He suggested reducing the size of the structure to accommodate more parking.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that meeting the minimum requirement for parking is insufficient in this case because of the lack of on-street parking. The Commission needs to see a design that provides meaningful parking for two dwelling units. She felt that there should be a minimum of five parking spaces, but maybe not four garage spaces. She said that perhaps a smaller main house would make sense.

Chair Stein concurred that perhaps a smaller house and more on-site parking would work.

Commissioner Smith stated he would not quantify the size of the project; rather, the architect should be allowed to do his job. He concurred that parking must accommodate more spaces than the minimum requirement.

Mr. Peterson asked if the concern is the size of the project or the lack of parking. He asked questions regarding the respective Planning Commission and Design Review Board review processes. Senior Planner Watrous responded that the Town’s approach is to deal with use issues first, then deal with other design issues.

Mr. Peterson asked what the number of spaces that is required for each unit. Commissioner Smith noted that a single-family house would require two spaces, and that a secondary dwelling unit also requires two spaces. The analysis in the staff report describes what the Planning Commission must consider in order to grant an exception to the required parking for a secondary dwelling unit. He explained that the Planning Commission is suggesting parking spaces for four cars, plus space for guests and others. He said that the Town does not have a formula for determining the correct number of additional spaces.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that recently approved Precise Development Plans with narrow streets and isolated homes have required that five or six parking spaces be provided each house.

Chair Stein clarified that Staff and applicant will meet to help resolve the Commission’s concerns. He added that this may prove to be economical for the applicant, because some other problems could also be solved at that level.

41 MAIN STREET; REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN APPROVED 6,740-SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT THE SITE OF THE FORMER TIBURON TOMMIE’S RESTAURANT; Doris Caceres Trust, owner; Ron Caceres, applicant; Assessor’s Parcel No. 059-151-04.

Planning Director Anderson reviewed the staff report in some detail. He discussed a sixth option for the Town, which would be to consider amending the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance.

Chair Stein noted the options presented by Staff appear to go beyond the request for a variance, and asked if the Planning Commission, at this meeting, can discuss change of a use or a change to the Zoning Ordinance.

Planning Director Anderson confirmed a change to the Zoning Ordinance would require notice and research. In response to questions, he stated that there are a total of three residential units on the second and third floors and retail space on the ground floor.

Commissioner Greenberg asked if, in Resolution 2195, whether the numbers are correct today. Anderson responded that the numbers have changed somewhat, and that in 1996 the Town Council amended Resolution 2195 to reflect field conditions that indicated that Resolution 2195 had overstated the parking problem.

The public comment period was opened.

Ron Caceres, applicant, stated he never thought parking would be a big concern. He was told by Staff that 45 spaces were grandfathered, in his property purchase and there was no requirement for additional parking. He did not know of this requirement for additional parking until after purchasing the property. He has pursued both options with the two owners of the town’s parking areas and no owner will give him a 50-year lease and they will not rent him ten spaces. He would like to reduce the number of spaces required; however, he would also want to provide parking for the residents of his project. He cannot go forward until he has parking for his residents. He believed that discussions with Ed Zelinsky were at an impasse. In response to questions, he stated that the largest residential unit is 2,000 square feet and the other two are 1,100 and 800 square feet.

Commissioner Greenberg asked if there were discussions about a renewable lease for a lesser number of years.

Mr. Caceres responded that to date, the only option is a month-to-month or a one-year lease. No renewal options were considered by Mr. Zelinsky. He stated that he does not believe that there is a parking problem in downtown Tiburon.

Bill McLaughlin, Design Review Board Chairman, stated that from a design standpoint, the project is excellent. He spoke with Steve Sears of Sam’s Anchor Café and heard the business community’s thoughts regarding this project. The end of Main Street has been lifeless for many years and merchants have been hoping something would be built on this site. To lose this building over a parking issue would be tragic. Trying to mandate an agreement between two private owners is a questionable government directive. Modifying the Zoning Ordinance appears to be a sound option. Live/work situations in downtown Tiburon are a goal that should be furthered.

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

Commissioner Smith stated this is a complicated issue, which he often deals with in his own profession. Parking spaces are very expensive. This is unfortunate. The Town is trying to command that private parties come to an agreement. He is concerned that the Planning Commission not be used as "leverage" between the two parties in this parking issue. He wants to accommodate a solution, though some of the options listed in the Staff report are not viable, such as the on-site parking option and the 100 percent parking variance option. An in-lieu fee could establish a wrong precedent. There are creative leasing options. No overnight parking in the Main Street lot conflicts with the residential use of this project. Living downtown is very attractive. He favors changing the required parking lease term of 50 years, if this would help the project. The intensity of use is reduced from that of Tiburon Tommie’s, which required more parking, yet the Zoning Ordinance does not recognize this decrease in intensity. The Town does not recognize the economic realities of parking in southern Marin County, which often drive development. The Planning Commission should find a way to move the project forward.

Commissioner Greenberg indicated that she could support a variance for the retail portion of the project, and modifying lease requirements for the residential portion. She felt strongly that given the size of the dwelling units, a lease for five parking spaces should be required. People can walk to parking areas. Parking does not have to be next to the housing in downtown areas. She suggested a variance for five cars for the retail uses and making an arrangement with the parking lot owner that a short-term lease for the five residential parking spaces must be renewable. To walk five minutes to one’s parked car is not difficult. Residents could walk from the Beach Road parking lot to this site. The residents will need a car on a full-time basis.

Commissioner Snow concurred that five or six parking spaces would be sufficient. He would not support the option to change the use to exclusively commercial. He suggested a condition that in the future event that other parking spaces (perhaps controlled by the Town) were made available, that Mr. Caceres would have a right to lease a number of those spaces.

Chair Stein stated he also does not want the Planning Commission to be used as leverage in an ongoing negotiation. The Planning Commission’s role is to further the public interest. The problem is downtown parking, which is in the control of two private property owners, which gives them power over downtown redevelopment. He questioned whether any option makes sense for the Planning Commission to entertain. From the Town’s Revitalization Study came a reduction of parking spaces in the downtown area. The Planning Commission could approve a variance, but it may not do either the public or Mr. Caceres any good if his project is not viable due to an absence of any parking.

Commissioner Smith suggested requiring five spaces with a shorter-term lease, both of which would require less money, but asked if these changes would be economically helpful to Mr. Caceres. If so, they are worth exploring. If this suggestion is off the mark, he would suggest that a reduction of the intensity of use be considered under the Zoning Ordinance. There is no currently no mechanism in the Zoning Ordinance to address this. The Town Council may wish to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow an exception for circumstances such as this.

Commissioner Greenberg wondered if Commissioner Smith’s is a time-sensitive solution.

Chair Stein suggested that the Planning Commission allow Mr. Caceres to further negotiate with the requirement of fewer years, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. This would serve the public interest more constructively than being a party to the negotiations. There is broad support for the project. The Planning Commission is prepared to make accommodations to ensure the project moves forward.

Mr. Caceres stated there are no ongoing negotiations with Mr. Zelinsky at this time, and that by setting the term and requiring parking, the Town gives undue leverage to the parking lot owner. He asked that the Town not require parking. He asked where hotel guests and residents on Main Street park. He added that it would serve the public interest to have the project go forward, and if there are no parking solutions, his project will not go forward. An in-lieu fee of the magnitude suggested in the Staff report also makes the project economically unviable. He had attempted to interest restaurant uses to occupy the building, but they all wanted to own the building rather than lease it from him.

Chair Stein stated that at the initial use permit hearing, he understood that the applicant thought parking was not a problem.

Mr. Caceres concurred, adding that he had discussed parking with Mr. Zelinsky, who was open to his request; however, at that time, he did not know the full nature of the Town’s parking lease requirements.

It was the consensus of the Commission to grant a partial variance in the number of parking spaces required.

Planning Director Anderson stated staff will participate in continued negotiations with Mr. Caceres and Mr. Zelinsky, and return with the best possible lease offer from Main Street Properties.

Mr. Caceres added he doubted he could even get a five-year lease, even with cost of living adjustments, because owners do not want to tie up their land for any length of time.

Commissioner Smith suggested discussing a termination provision that would let the lot owner out of a long-term lease if the owner wanted to sell or change the parking lot’s use.

Mr. Caceres concurred this would be workable and he would also want to receive priority to parking if it is developed by the Town in the future. Because of circumstances, he requires a quick solution. He reiterated that parking for residents of his building is a necessity.

Chair Stein stated he understands Mr. Caceres’ concern and understands the project is not viable without parking.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

 ATTEST:

 _________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY