Staff Report

ITEM NO. E-3

REPORT DATE. 5/94/26/02

ASSESSOR=S PARCEL: 039-141211-0614

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).

PROPOSAL:

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a home office addition, and add an upper level stair case leading from the garage to main residence, on the property located at bedroom/bathroom addition, replace an existing rear deck with a new reconfigured deck, and install bay windows for the residence located at 177 Stewart Drive25 Mark Terrace. The applicants applied for a project that was approximately the same in 1997, which was approved by the Design Review Board on November 20, 1997. Building permits were never issued for the project, so the applicants have submitted this new application.

The existing home is located slightly below street level on an irregularlyon a triangular shaped lot, which slopes significantly down from the street lot. The existing home has two stories and a linear floor plan encompassing approximatelythree levels that step down the hillside, and the office addition is proposed to be on the lower level. The addition would be located on the south east corner of the residence, and occupy the space under the existing rear deck. The home is approximately 4,068 square feet, and the proposed addition would increase the size of the residence by approximately 186 square feet. 3,135 square feet.

The floor area of the proposed bedroom addition is approximately 600 square feet, and located on the north end of the residence. The bay windows would be installed on the west side of the residence, on both the lower level an upper levels, and would increase the floor area by approximately 150 square feet. The existing deck on the west side of the residence will be replaced with a smaller deck and spiral staircase. Other work proposed for the residence includes a new skylight above the kitchen on the east facing slope of the roof, a new entry door, and upgraded windows throughout.

The proposed staircase would be located on the south side of the garage, and would step down to the main living level of the residence. It is proposed to be covered, and therefore contributes to the lot coverage for the property.

Other aspects of the project include rebuilding the entire rear deck. The deck’s configuration would be the same, but new structural columns and bracing would be added. The railing on the deck would change to a solid wood rail, with a shingled exterior to match the existing building. The total floor area of the additions would be approximately 750square feet,which would bring the residence to 3,886 square feet

Along with the proposed additions, the applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setbackexcess lot coverage. The required side yard setbackmaximum allowable lot coverage according to the RO-2 zoning district regulations is 15 fee%t. The existing lot coverage for the property is 17.4%, which already exceeds the zoning requirements. The proposed addition encroaches on the side yard setback by a maximum of 3’1"would bring the lot coverage to 18.2%, . Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for a side yard setback of 11’11" in lieu of the standard 15 feet15%.

Zoning

As previously stated, the applicant is a requesting a variance for reduced side yard setbackexcess lot coverage. Staff finds that the project is in conformance with the remainder of the development standards for the RO-2 zoning district.

Design Issues

The colors and materials of the exterior of the proposed additions would match the existing residence. The siding on the proposed addition would be T1-11 plywood, and the roofing materials wouldis proposed to be wood shingles, and would be treated to match the existing residence. The new wood deck would have a tempered glass railing for safety and wind protection.

N Not only would the colors and materials of the addition match the existing home, but so would its design. The addition would not significantly increase the appearance of mass and bulk, and would maintain the linear floor plan of the existing homearchitectural features of the existing home. Because of this, the potential view or privacy impacts to the neighboring properties are minimal. The potentially most effected property would be next door at 179 Stewart Drive, but there is enough grade change and vegetation between the two properties to adequately screen the proposed project.

As proposed, tThe project meets the floor area requirements for the property, (You should mention this up in the Proposal section). Hhowever, the plans indicate that there would be a significant crawl space created under the proposed addition, and if in the future this crawl space were converted to living space, the property would exceed its floor area limit. In light of past problems with the conversion of sub-floor areas, it is important for the Board be aware of this situation. As long as this space remains unfinished and unexcavated, it would not contribute to the overall floor area of the residence, and the property would remain in conformance with the floor area requirements. A section of the proposed addition, showing the sub-floor area, can be seen on sheet A0 of the submitted plans.

Variance

In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make the following findings as required by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:

The project architect has suggested that the shape and topography of the site is unique, and limits the expansion potential of the existing house. The site’s boundaries are an irregular trapezoidal triangle shape, and the property slopes steeply downhill beyond the established building pad/pool area. The least disruptive areas of expansion for the existing house isare on the north and south sides of the house. (Is this a special circumstance?).

The following variances for excess lot coverage have been approved for properties in the adjacent neighborhood, within the RO-2 zoning district:

The above chart is not a complete list of the lot coverage variances that have been approved in the neighborhood, however the conclusion could be made from the given data that granting the same type of variance to the subject property will not constitute a special privilege.

There have been many variances granted in the neighborhood for reduced front and rear yard setbacks. More specifically, variances for side yard setbacks have been approved for 197, 197, and 199 Stewart Drive.

3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.

If the applicant is restricted to the lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would have to rely on building the addition in a more intrusive location as viewed by neighboring property owners. The proposed location of the addition also provides for normal functioning of the house, which is an important design aspect when a home has a terraced floor plan on a steep lot. Limiting the lot coverage of the structure to that allowed by the Zoning Ordinance would be an unnecessary hardship because the Town is less likely to approve a development that adversely impacts neighboring properties. An alternative design may also result in a less functional floor plan. The project architect has suggested that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would result in either one of the two following design alternatives, each (both?) of which would constitute a hardship for the property owners:

Placement of the addition within the only level, usable yard area of the site, thereby eliminating such area and obstructing views from the existing living areas, or;

A significant reduction of the master bedroom/bath addition’s square footage, which would restrict the owner’s enjoyment of their property.

4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

Public Comment

To date, no public comments have been received regarding this project.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07 and 4.03.05 (Guiding Principles, and Variance Findings by Acting Body). If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, and all necessary findings can be made for the variance for reduced side yard setbackexcess lot coverage, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

1.    Conditions of Approval

2.    Application and supplemental materials dated March 26April 9, 2002.

3.    Minutes from the November 20, 1997, Design Review Board Meeting.

4.    Findings for the variances as submitted by the applicant.

5.    Plans for the project.

EXHIBIT 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

FILE #202132

1.    This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued.

2.    The development of this project shall conform to the application received by the Town of Tiburon on February 20April 17, 2002, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.

3.    All exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting.

4.    No lighting fixtures shall be located in the wells of the skylights, and the skylights shall be tinted in a non-reflective manner.

5.    Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design Review approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.