ROLL CALL                  7:30 PM                       ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS   THERE WERE NONE

Staff Update

Commission Information items

Consideration of Canceling Meeting of March 12, 2003 MEETING CANCELLED

         1.     MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2003               ADOPTED AS CORRECTED 4-0 CHAIR SMITH ABSTAINED

         2.     65 MONTEREY DRIVE; ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CYPRESS HOLLOW PRECISE                   DEVELOPMENT PLAN   ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS 4-0 CHAIR SMITH ABSTAINED

DISCUSSION ITEMS

3.   R-2 ZONE REVIEW; ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT TOWN COUNCIL BEGIN AMENDMENT PROCESS         FOR SECTION 2.05.01 ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS 5-0

ADJOURNMENT           8:42 PM                                                                                                                                                                                         a022603

 

Future Agenda Items:

Extend/Review CUP for Pay Parking lots at 1525 and 1555 Tiburon Boulevard - 04/09/03

Extend/Review CUP for 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Sprint WC – 04/09/03

Extend/Review CUP for WCF at 78 Main Street – 04/09/03

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

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

ROLL CALL

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

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson and Meeting Recorder Evans

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:

None.

In response to Commissioner Stein, Director of Community Development Anderson stated that the revised draft EIR for Tiburon Glen is expected to be released for public review in April. Since the current court extension expires in April, another extension will be requested from the Judge.

M/S Collins/Snow (5-0) to cancel the meeting of March 12, 2003.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2003

Changes include:

Page 1, Consent Calendar – replace "mechanisms" with "mechanism".

Add page numbers and a footer.

Page 4, Fourth paragraph – ". . . legally or illegally, if a play area is constructed right up against the grove. She could see allowing enhancements. . . She felt that approving . . ."

Page 4, Fifth paragraph ". . . of piecemeal requests for exemptions. He felt that this request is inconsistent . . ."

Page 4, last paragraph – ". . . kept in a natural condition, as stated in the recorded document with the County."

M/S Stein/Snow, passed 4-0-1 (Chair Smith abstained) to approve the Minutes of February 12, 2003 as amended.

2. 65 MONTEREY DRIVE; ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CYPRESS HOLLOW PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

It was noted that the applicant was not present.

The following modifications to the draft Resolution were made:

Modify Page 1, (C), fifth line, change "but" to "and".

Modify Page 2, (E), third line, replace "encouraged" with "intended". Last sentence, delete the word "more".

DISCUSSION ITEMS

3. R-2 ZONE REVIEW; ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT TOWN COUNCIL BEGIN AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR SECTION 2.05.01

Director of Community Development Anderson made a brief presentation, noting that three Options were more fully developed. Option A slightly embellished the current zoning ordinance text; Option B set up a series of "standards" that would need to be met before an application for two detached units could be accepted for review by the Design Review Board; and Option C established a two-step process where the Planning Commission would need to approve the detached unit "concept" for a site prior to the Design Review Board receiving an application. He clarified that under Option B, there is really no Staff discretion involved in the initial decision to accept the application. The application either meets the standards or it does not; the decision is black or white. Anderson concluded by stating that it would be helpful to obtain guidance from the Commission in order to narrow down what would be released as a potential zoning ordinance text amendment for public hearing.

In response to Chair Smith, Anderson stated that specific setback guidelines were not included because in the Old Tiburon area, front yard setback variances were very common because of the steep topography. Therefore, if setbacks are not met, an application would be accepted, but a Variance would be required.

Commissioner Stein asked whether sections (E), (F), and (G) under Option B would prohibit a Variance if some sort of other Variance had already been granted for a property. Anderson responded that if a lot coverage variance has been granted on the property previously, but no additional variances are required, then an application for two homes could still be filed. However, he noted that in most instances, Option B would apply to a "teardown situation" where all prior permits would be erased.

Commissioner Stein felt that the language of Option B could allow for someone to ask for a lot coverage variance, create two dwellings, and then convert them into condominiums.

With nobody in the audience wishing to comment on this matter, the public comment period was opened and closed. Discussion was returned to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Collins presented photographs of some of the larger homes in Old Tiburon, which he found to be somewhat massive. He expressed concern that if the intent of the zoning ordinance amendment was to preserve the historic character of Old Tiburon, that encouraging this type of a large single building was unlikely to achieve the intended result.

Commissioner Stein described the character of development in the area as "eclectic". Chair Smith agreed that over the years, different sizes, styles, and designs have created an eclectic character in the area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the "character" of the Old Tiburon neighborhood could not be easily defined and should probably not serve as the basis for an amended ordinance.

Commissioner Collins stated that the high density, small lots, narrow streets, lack of parking, and steep topography seemed to distinguished Old Tiburon from other neighborhoods in Tiburon as much as any other factors.

Commissioner Stein stated that under the current zoning ordinance mechanism, land use decisions were made based solely on design criteria. However, while he agreed that design criteria were important, they were not the only issues to be considered. One of his concerns was that if two small buildings were allowed on a lot, that option was locked in forever. However, if a large duplex was allowed, a land owner had the option to convert it into a single family structure. In comparing the allowed uses under R-1 and R-2 zones, he asked that more information regarding development rights be provided. In his opinion, Option C was a better alternative with certain modifications.

Commissioner Snow agreed that he would prefer that the Planning Commission reviewed requests for two detached buildings before the matter went to the Design Review Board, and that he was leaning toward Option C.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that while she originally supported Option B, she agreed that the concept of two detached units had to be much more carefully considered. She noted that there were very few applications filed for two detached units, and that a two-step process would not be overly burdensome to Staff and would not affect many applicants. Therefore, she agreed that approval for the concept of two detached units on a single lot should be based more on land use issues, and preferred Option C.

Chair Smith clarified that the purpose of the hearing was to simply recommend to the Town Council that a text amendment be explored, and not to make a decision on what the amendments should be. That said, he agreed that some fine-tuning of the zoning ordinance text was necessary, but that he wanted to avoid creating an onerous regulation. He supports flexibility and the ability to interpret ordinances differently over time as circumstances change. While he favored Option A, he could perhaps be persuaded to support Option C with some modifications.

Commissioner Collins stated that findings and criteria were important. He preferred Option C because it established more discretion on "land use" issues as opposed to "design" issues.

Commissioner Stein expressed concern that Section 4.06.03, which establishes standards for approval of condominium use permits, could allow a lot to be split unless stronger language was included in the section that better spelled out the restrictions.

In response to a question from Chair Smith regarding secondary dwelling units, Anderson stated that the contemplated text amendments to the R-2 zone would not conflict with the new state law going into effect in July, because secondary dwelling units are not allowed in the R-2 zone. They are allowed only in single family residential zones; not in the two-family residential zone. Even under the new law, local jurisdictions have the authority to reasonably designate areas and zones where secondary dwelling units will be allowed.

Chair Smith recognized Helen Lindquist from the audience. She questioned the appropriateness of allowing living space of a second unit within the required setbacks, as was currently being considered by the Design Review Board. Chair Smith responded that if a Variance was granted, living space is allowed within the required setbacks. Ms. Lindquist then suggested requiring four off-street parking spaces when approving two detached units in the R-2 zone. Director of Community Development Anderson stated that four off-street parking spaces were already required for condominiumization, but that a standard duplex only required three parking spaces.

Commissioner Greenberg made the following comments: 1) allowing two separate units on steep lots sometimes created a larger mass than intended. Therefore, slope should never be a sole criterion on which detached units are allowed; 2) Access from more than one street is often a poor solution (burdening a second street, while providing a benefit to the primary address) due to the narrow streets in Old Tiburon; in many cases, access to both units should be provided from the same street; 3) establishing a minimum distance between buildings of 25 feet may not always be desirable; 4) criteria for not allowing side or rear yard encroachments should be included; and 5) the potential for "loopholes" being created through incremental approvals over time should be addressed. In other words, the permit history of a property should be reviewed as part of the process.

Commissioner Stein stated that, given the characteristics of many lots in the R-2 zone, these should be limited to a single family dwelling. Director of Community Development Anderson agreed, stating that 40% of the lots in the R-2 zone currently do not qualify for anything more than a single family dwelling. He also noted that there are many nonconforming duplex and multi-family structures, some of which, unless destroyed by natural disaster, would probably not be allowed to be rebuilt under current zoning.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that what was missing in the R-2 zone section was any language expressing preference for one building over two buildings in the R-2 zone, or that allowing two buildings was a privilege and not a right. Anderson confirmed that a two-family dwelling was currently a "use by right" in the R-2 zone, provided that adequate lot area existed. No preference was explicitly stated.

Commissioner Stein agreed that what is not stated in the section at present is the rationale for why the Town prefers units in a single building as opposed to two buildings, and why two buildings must be a special exception.

Commissioner Collins suggested including specific language prohibiting detached units on extreme, steep, unusual lots. Issues regarding view retention, and mass and bulk should be included in the criteria. Anderson responded that the view, mass and bulk issues were the Design Review Board's primary concerns. He added that a property’s permit history could also be included as a criterion.

Chair Smith recognized Sue Quinn from the audience. She asked whether the Planning Commission could "condition" any exceptions that it might grant for detached units under Option C. Anderson stated that the Commission could attach reasonable conditions to such a permit approval.

Chair Smith recognized Hank Bruce from the audience. Mr. Bruce stated that as a representative of the design community, he was a little disturbed by some of the Commissioners' comments. He said that "livability" of a project was the key, and that good designers work hard to integrate the elements of a project into their surrounding environment. He expressed concern that some of the text amendments suggested constituted over-legislation, especially the prohibition of separate access points for two detached units. He believed that with respect to any particular lot, the correct question to ask was "What is the best solution?" In his opinion, while the present ordinances were sufficient, they could be clarified without restricting the capability of designers or legislating away all design discretion.

Chair Smith summarized the Commission’s discussion, stating that it appeared that three Commissioners favored a modified Option C at this time. Two Commissioners appeared to favor more modest changes to the zoning ordinance text of the R-2 zone.

Anderson stated that the next step would be to forward the Commission's recommendation to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to the Town Council. If said recommendation is accepted by the Council, staff will prepare a report for public review and comment and schedule a public hearing.

Commissioner Stein suggested some modifications to the draft resolution that were endorsed by the Commission.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

______________________________

PAUL SMITH, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY