Staff Update

Commission Information items

CONSENT CALENDAR

        1.    MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2003   APPROVED AS AMENDED

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. TOWN-INITIATED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS; CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USES ALLOWED IN THE R-2 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE; ADDITION AND AMENDMENT OF SEVERAL DEFINED TERMS; ADDITION OF REGULATIONS REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW FOR PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS; ADDITION OF REGULATIONS PLACING LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN FRONT YARDS; AND MODIFICATION TO THE RMP ZONE PROHIBITING DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS. DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL, WITH FRONT YARD PARKING DISCUSSION CONTINUED TO MAY 14, 2003

ADJOURNMENT     10:45PM a040903

Future Agenda Items:

Extend/Review CUP for Pay Parking lots at 1525 and 1555 Tiburon Boulevard - 04/23/03

Extend/Review CUP for 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Sprint WC – 04/23/03

Extend/Review CUP for WCF at 78 Main Street – 05/28/03

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

Absent: None

Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous and Meeting Recorder Flanagan

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS          There were none.

Community Development Director Anderson that the Planning Commission will review the issue of the Downtown Element at a special meeting on April 10, 2003.

1. Minutes of February 26, 2003

Page 4, next to last paragraph line 4 to read, "…poor solution, burdening a second street while providing benefit to the primary address; 3)…"

Page 3, 4th paragraph, line 2 to state, "…he found to be somewhat massive. He expressed…" Third line to state, "…encouraging this type of a large single building…"

Page 3, 6^th paragraph, 2^nd line to state "…steep topography seemed to distinguish…"

M/S, Snow/Stein, passed 5-0, to approve the minutes of February 26, 2003, as amended.

 PUBLIC HEARINGS

Community Development Director Anderson reviewed the Staff report. He noted that everyone who has property in Old Tiburon received notice of this hearing.

Chair Smith suggested changing language, on Page 9, F and 14, 16, to "…no side yard variances." He asked if there is a need to take separate action on each text amendment. Community Development Director Anderson responded that separate action would only be necessary if there is no consensus.

The public comment period was opened.

Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, stated that residents park in front yards in Bel Aire without a formalized agreement, following Staff’s encouragement that no more than 50 percent of a front yard be paved. She would like a regulation formalizing this requirement.

Sam Ware, 1809 Mar West Street, asked why new regulations are being considered for the R-2 zone. He felt that Staff had composed a sophisticated solution to the Commission’s direction; however, he asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the need for new legislation that contains cookie cutter dimensions and requirements to be imposed on a neighborhood built in a time when the cookie cutter had not yet evolved. He asked the Planning Commission to consider that the need does not exist to struggle with the creation of legislation or regulations that might tend to further encumber the system and process than enable it.

Hank Bruce, 2350 Paradise Drive, stated that he concurred with Mr. Ware and cannot understand why this issue has been raised, as he felt that the changes are unnecessary. He was involved with the recent Design Review application at 2355 Paradise Drive and feels that the Town reached the correct decision. He did not think that there needed to be any further justifications for two buildings on an R-2 lot, or other requirements, such as accessing a property from two sides, which can minimize front yard paving.

Ms. Brunini added that the Planning Commission should not delete "storage of operable or inoperable vehicles" from the regulations on parking in front yards on Page 17, Section 5.06 5.4d.

Chair Smith noted that in his neighborhood, one property has a five-car parking lot and another has a six-car parking lot on either side of his house.

Dolores Davis, 162 Solano Avenue, stated that having two houses on a lot is nicer than seeing an enormous one building on a lot, and there are currently many restrictions to two houses on one lot. She asked why her property should be treated differently than other owners’ because she is in an R-2 zone. She described the common area requirements for detached condominium units.

Chair Smith stated there were concerns from the last meeting that condominiumized detached duplexes begin to look like small house on small lots.

Bill McLaughlin stated he sat on the Design Review Board and heard the Aureguy application at 2355 Paradise Drive. He noted that the Design Review Board approved the application, which was appealed to the Council, and the appeal was denied. He felt that this showed that the process works. He did not believe that there will be a flood of requests for similar projects in the R-2 zone. He felt that perhaps the dust should settle a little longer on this recent application before changes are made to the R-2 zone, and that the Town should wait until the project is completed so the Planning Commission can see what the Design Review Boardmembers saw when they approved it. He felt that monolithic one-unit duplexes are not acceptable in Old Tiburon. He would recommend Staff zoning code amendment Scenario 3, with a change to Page 14, Item 4 in the preamble, with fewer specific regulations. He also felt that the proposed changes to the parking regulations should be reviewed at a separate public hearing.

Alice Fredericks, One Cazadero Lane, stated that she supported Staff Scenarios 1 or 2. The impact of all 140-plus R-2 zoned lots the lots developing with two structures would have a significant impact on her property. She felt that these changes are coming, as homeowners will want to tear down their little, older homes. She felt that the issue of whether dwelling units should be allowed in two structures is a land issue that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not the Design Review Board. She felt that a bifurcated approval process with land use issues considered by the Planning Commission is appropriate and would not be onerous on applicants.

Commissioner Collins asked how the Planning Commission, given a bifurcated process, would not be essentially doing the work of the Design Review Board because the Planning Commission would have to look at design, bulk, etc. of a building. Ms. Fredericks replied that the Planning Commission’s decision would be limited to whether a one- or two-structure design is appropriate; the Design Review Board would not be able to supersede the Planning Commission’s decision regarding one or two structures.

Ms. Brunini stated that, as a real estate broker, she was concerned about clients who already have detached duplexes on their property. Chair Smith explained that existing homes would be grandfathered.

Sue Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated that she agrees with Ms. Fredericks’ perspective. She stated that exceptions should be made to the Zoning Ordinance based on physical characteristics, not whims. She felt that two structures on one lot increase visual density. and create additional view and privacy problems. Allowing two structures, not one, is an irreversible decision and she felt that this should be a Planning Commission decision. She said that cities that have larger lots have higher values and more amenities. She presented a summary of a study that she had conducted of R-2 zoned properties in Tiburon. She felt that no one would be hurt by denying the ability to construct two structures on one lot. She asked that the Planning Commission consider an ordinance that states two single-family homes on one lot is not an accepted use in the R-2 zone and change the definition of duplex.

Helen Lindqvist, 3 Cazadero Lane, stated that she had heard that the Town Council had partially granted the appeal for the Aureguy project, but at the following meeting, the partial granting was not included in the adopted resolution, resulting in more unhappy neighbors. She described another recent Design Review application at 1790 Centro West Street for a detached duplex, where the owner wanted two units but did not want to provide street parking. She felt that parking in Old Tiburon must be increased. She asked that the Planning Commission to watch what happens with all the approved variances.

Planning Manager Watrous stated on the Aureguy appeal, the Town Council adopted two resolutions because there were two appeals. One was denied and one partially granted with the condition that the roof heights of the two units be lowered.

Mr. McLaughlin stated there has recently been discussion in the town about conflicts of interest. He said that the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the Town Council, and a Town Councilmember speaking before the Planning Commission, trying to affect legislation that the Planning Commission will offer to the Council, sends the wrong message to the public because elected officials are expected to attend a meeting with their minds not made up.

Wally Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated that Councilmember Miles Berger has a home in the R-2 zone and voted on the issue at the last Town Council meeting.

Alice Johnson, 1819 Mar West Street, said that there is nothing wrong with someone on the Town Council who wants to speak as a private individual.

Kathy Benedictson, representing Richard Dawson, thanked Hank Bruce for his comments at the last meeting, and stated there is integrity in the design review process, the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. She said that perhaps this effort is an attempt to fix something that is not broken.

Commissioner Stein noted that the Town Council asked the Planning Commission to look at this issue.

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

Commissioner Stein stated that the spectrum of comment has been varied. He said that, according to Darwin, most change is a result of doing something marginally better, not necessarily fixing something that is broken. He said that the Planning Commission was asked to explore if perhaps the Town could do something better regarding detached duplexes, and is trying to make the future process fairer and more efficient. He noted that the existing law states that two detached units on two small lots is not normally the desired result for an R-2 property. Rather, he said that two units in one structure is desired, so if there is an exception to this, standards must be met. He said that it must be determined if this is a design or land use decision. He noted that if there is a lot split in the R-1 zone, that application would come to the Planning Commission in a bifurcated process with the Design Review Board. He said that it is not unusual to have both land use and design review issues in which the Planning Commission addresses land use.

Commissioner Collins asked Community Development Director Anderson to clarify how a burn-down or teardown of either one or two buildings would be affected by grandfathering issues.

Community Development Director Anderson stated the intent of the draft ordinance was that existing buildings and uses be grandfathered.

Commissioner Greenberg stated she believes the Zoning Ordinance language needs work, and that the proposed language is in the right direction. She was not sure whether a two-step or one-step process would be most appropriate. She preferred not to slow the process. She acknowledged that it will be difficult to know what level of building design will be necessary for Planning Commission review. She wanted to simplify the process, but felt that this is clearly a land use decision. She said that the Town should not wait until something is broken to fix it. She felt that these applications should come to the Planning Commission first. She asked for specific language about grandfathering.

Commissioner Snow concurred there should be a quick review process but it is also good to have criteria and he does not want to take responsibility away from the Design Review Board. He still wants the Design Review Board to be able to make good decisions about variances, etc. He asked that the language be made as simple as possible.

Commissioner Stein stated that Scenario 2 is the most appropriate because land use questions need to be considered prior to design review. He did not see why the Town should perpetuate a process that creates small houses on small lots. He said that this is a long-term decision, and that the two-step process would not be a disproportionate level of review.

Commissioner Collins stated, for the thirteen years since the ordinance was enacted, there have only been a couple of detached duplexes built. He said that the ordinance is very clear to him; establishing criteria is what is important. He said that the two-step review process would create two rounds of design review. He would try to add criteria that would give direction to the Design Review Board. He favors Scenario 3.

Chair Smith stated he would lean toward Scenario 3. He said that he would actually only make a very minor change to the existing ordinance, as he does not find that the language is ambiguous. He did not want to create an over-regulatory process, but felt that Scenario 3 adds more clarity.

Commissioner Collins stated that the issue of findings did not trouble him because the Design Review Board already has to make findings to support its decisions, although not as explicitly as the process being proposed.

Commissioner Snow stated he favors Scenario 3.

Commissioner Greenberg asked if there is any information about two ownerships on a lot and difficulty in getting a mortgage. Planning Manager Watrous stated that he has seen lending agencies with a lack of understanding of the condominumization process when the end result looks like two single-family homes on a single lot.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that when there is separate ownership, more building begins occurring on the lot (fences etc.). She felt that it is a land use issue when there is an increase in the density by allowing two structures on one lot.

Chair Smith stated that people will maximize their return by constructing two buildings, making them condominiums and selling them.

Commissioner Greenberg stated financing issues should be investigated if Scenario 3 is followed. If there is a potential problem, she felt that the Town should educate people about this during the application process.

The majority of the commissioners agreed to begin reviewing the details of the proposed Scenario 3.

Discussion was held, with direction given to Staff to make a number of changes to the draft language in Scenario 3.

In Section 2.05.01, subsections 2 and 2.5, the language allowing two dwelling units in either a single building or in two buildings was to be replace with either "attached two-family dwelling" or "detached two-family dwelling."

Language was to be included specifically stating that existing detached two-family dwellings would be considered to be legal nonconforming structures.

The beginning of the last paragraph of Section 2.05.04 (A) was changed to state, "The Town also recognizes…"

Language would be added to the criteria in 2.05.04 (F) regarding readily accessible access that would not create adverse impact on neighboring properties.

The word "reasonable" would be deleted from the beginning of Section 2.05.04 (G).

Condition 6 of Section 2.05.04 (G) would be modified to add "variances" after "setback."

Commissioner Stein stated he personally does not feel as strongly about allowing condominiumization but feels strongly about the process to get there. He thought that prohibiting condominiumization or recommending against condominiumization and the use of this procedure creates a self-contradictory process because there will be enormous pressure to condominiumize. He believed that the development pressures are heading toward smaller units on smaller lots with divided ownership and a recommended condition against it will not change this.

Chair Smith stated he would leave in the flexibility of prohibiting condominiums.

Commissioner Greenberg suggested adding reasoning so that the Town Council understands the reasons for this prohibition.

Condition #7 of Section 2.05.04 (G) would be modified to make a deed restriction prohibiting future condominiumization a required condition of approval, with language included stating that this is necessary to avoid de facto upzonings and protecting the Town’s rental housing stock.

It was Planning Commission consensus to make no changes to the RMP language.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require Design Review approval for the modification to the layout or design of parking lots in non-residential zones, and for parking lots of ten or more spaces in the R-3 or RMP zones.

Extensive discussion was held regarding parking of vehicles within the front yard setbacks in residential zones. Chair Smith stated this is common in his neighborhood. He noted that huge vehicles often do not fit into garages; as a result, front yards are often paved, which leads to a proliferation of vehicles and equipment in the front yard.

Commissioner Stein stated that any such regulations should not be tacked onto the junkyard language. He suggested that a separate statement could be added to restrict parking vehicles on grass.

Commissioner Greenberg questioned whether parking should be restricted in the side or rear yard setbacks, and whether this prohibition would be limited only to the required setbacks.

Planning Manager Watrous noted that most required side yard setbacks are not large enough for two non-tandem parking spaces.

Commissioner Stein stated the amount of yard area that can be converted to hardscape is the issue. He thought that a formula should be devised establishing a maximum amount of impervious surface on a property.

Community Development Director Anderson stated Staff started looking at such restrictions and found it is not simple to come up with a straightforward regulation.

Commissioner Greenberg noted that planned developments have larger lots and paving over a side yard can be an issue. She felt that the issue is paving over and storing vehicles anywhere on a residential lot.

Planning Manager Watrous noted that there could be difficulties in determining what constitutes a front or side yard on lots with irregular building envelopes. He stated that the issue of parking in a back yard raises a different set of questions.

Commissioner Stein stated the same concern about excessive vehicles in the front yard should apply to the back yard also because many people look into back yards. He felt that the amount of hardscape and where vehicles can park could be defined more stringently. If the zoning ordinance is intended to improve the livability of a neighborhood, then he felt that the Planning Commission is not giving it its best shot. He thought that parking should be prohibited on all required yards and the Town should restrict the amount of yard that can be converted to impervious surfaces. He would like Staff to return with modified language to include this.

Planning Manager Watrous recommended that the Planning Commission separate the discussion of these potential restrictions from the remainder of the potential code amendments being discussed at this meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue discussion on this subject to the May 14 Planning Commission meeting.

The last line of the new definition of "Attached Two-Family Dwelling" would be modified to read "…does not transform an Attached Two-Family Dwelling."

M/S, Greenberg/Collins, passed 5-0, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution with amendments as noted to the R2 zoning and RMP changes to be presented at the April 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.

M/S, Stein/Greenberg, passed 5-0, to continue hearing discussion on parking limitations of vehicles in front yards to the May 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

__________________________

PAUL SMITH, CHAIRMAN

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

 ______________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY