The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story two-family dwelling on property located at 2120 Mar East Street. The property is currently developed with a single-family home, which is proposed to be demolished.

This application was first reviewed at the December 20, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, the Board received testimony from several neighboring property owners regarding potential view blockage and visual mass and bulk impacts associated with the proposed structures. The Board echoed many of these concerns, finding that the proposed structure was too large in comparison with other homes in the vicinity, and that its design would significantly impact views from several nearby homes. The Board continued the request to the February 7, 2002 meeting, and gave specific direction to the applicants to significantly reduce the floor area and building height of the proposed structure, in order to reduce the mass and bulk and view impacts on neighboring residences.

The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the proposed duplex. The floor area of the structures was reduced by a total of 696 square feet. The proposed lot coverage was reduced by 365 square feet. The building height was reduced by 2 to 4 feet. The main structure was moved back approximately 10 feet from the front of the property. Other changes included modification to the roofline of the main structure, elimination of proposed skylights, and a reduction in size of the proposed pier and dock. Staff also noted that the revised design also did not comply with the Town’s 30 foot building height limit.

The Board reviewed the revised plans at the February 7, 2002 meeting. At that time, neighboring property owners again objected to the proposed design, stating that the revised plans did not adequately address the potential view, mass and bulk and privacy concerns raised at the previous Board meeting.

A majority of the Design Review Board concurred with the neighbors, concluding that the revised design was still too massive, and continued to result in unacceptable view and privacy impacts for nearby homes. The Board recommended that the height of the building be lowered, the mass of the structure reduced, changes made to the proposed dock, and that the translucent roof panels be eliminated.

The Board asked the applicants if they would agree to a continuance to address these concerns. The applicants requested that the Board take immediate action on the application. The Board then voted 3-1 (Boardmember Figour dissenting) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. On February 21, 2001, the Tiburon Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2002-02 denying the application.

The applicants subsequently filed a timely appeal of this decision to the Town Council. The Council reviewed this appeal on May 1, 2002. At that time, the Council agreed with the direction of the Design Review Board that the proposed design would result in view impacts on at least one nearby home, was too massive, too tall, and had unnecessary decks and glass facing the street. The Council voted unanimously to remand the application back to the Design Review Board, with the applicant directed to address these concerns.

The applicants have again submitted revised plans for the proposed duplex. Revisions to the plans include the following changes from the most recently reviewed plans:

Design Issues

View and Visual Impacts

The applicant has installed a rope between the previous ridgeline story poles erected for this structure to indicate the difference between the most recently reviewed design for the duplex and the current design. Other story poles have been modified to reflect the current design.

A review of the current story poles indicate that the revised design for this project would have visual impacts on the following homes:

2101 Mar East Street. The living room and deck of this home under construction have a panoramic view that extends from the East Bay to San Francisco. The revised duplex design would block less of Raccoon Straits than the previous design, impacting a portion of the center foreground view from the living room and deck, but would not impact views of Angel Island and San Francisco.

2105 Mar East Street. The living and dining rooms of this house across the street has a relatively restricted view of Raccoon Straits, the west end of Angel island and a part of San Francisco. The revised duplex design would continue to block the majority of the water view from the living room, but would no longer impact the views of San Francisco and Angel Island. The mass and bulk of the proposed garage along the front property line would still be very noticeable in the foreground view from this nearby residence, and the windows and balcony facing the street could result in privacy impacts for this home.

2130 Mar East Street. The ceremonial rooms and deck of this home immediately to the east of the subject property extend beyond the rear of the proposed structure; the new construction would not intrude into the panoramic views from these rooms. The revised design would still result in significant visual mass and bulk impacts when viewed from the side windows of this adjacent home, as the overall height of the structure at this end of the property has not been reduced. The increased side yard setback would help to mitigate the visual mass and bulk of the structure somewhat. The story poles break the horizon line when viewed from an upstairs guest bedroom, indicating future impacts on the afternoon sun in this room. When viewed from the west side yard of the adjoining lot, the east side of the proposed structure would create a visual tunnel effect, albeit slightly improved by the increased side yard setback. No windows are proposed on the east side of the proposed duplex, minimizing any potential privacy impacts on the adjacent residence.

2108 & 2110 Mar East Street. The living and dining rooms of the proposed duplex on this site have panoramic views of Raccoon Straits, Angel Island, San Francisco and the East Bay. The revised duplex design would have a marginal impact on East Bay views from the future dwellings on this adjacent site, but could still have an effect on morning sun reaching the neighboring homes.

115 Solano Street. The living room, kitchen and dining room of this home have panoramic views of Raccoon Straits, Angel Island and San Francisco. The revised duplex design would block a smaller portion of Raccoon Straits in the center foreground view from these rooms, but would leave most of the water view intact, and would not impact views of Angel Island and San Francisco.

The following portions of the Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to determine if the proposed project would result in significant view impacts on these neighboring homes:

Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Guidelines states that the "view protection is more important for major ‘ceremonial’ rooms (living, dining, kitchen, deck) than for secondary rooms (bedroom, bathrooms, family room, etc.)." The proposed construction would block views from the living rooms and deck of the home at 2101 Mar East Street, from the living room of the residence at 2105 Mar East Street, and from the living room, kitchen and deck of the home at 115 Solano Street.

Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) of the Guidelines states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of the view, then foreground, then middleground." The proposed construction would be situated in the foreground to middleground when viewed from the homes across the street. The horizon line would be broken when viewed from the upstairs guest bedroom of the home at 2130 Mar East Street and from the living and dining rooms of one future dwelling at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street.

Goal 3, Principle 7 (C) states that the "blockage of center of view [is] more damaging than blockage of side of view." The proposed construction would block most of the center of the view from the home at 2105 Mar East Street; a portion of the center of the view from the homes at 2101 Mar East Street and 115 Solano Street; and would intrude into the side of the view from the adjacent existing home at 2130 Mar East Street and the future adjacent residence at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street.

Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) states that "blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks." The revised duplex design would not block the San Francisco view from any nearby homes.

Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The homes at 2101 Mar East Street and 115 Solano Street have panoramic views that would have a portion of the water view in the center blocked by the proposed construction. The residence at 2105 Mar East Street has a smaller slot view from the living room that would be substantially affected by the future duplex. The existing home at 2130 Mar East Street and the future residence at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street have panoramic views that would remain essentially intact after the construction of the proposed structure.

The uppermost floor of the proposed duplex is the portion of the structure that projects into the water views for the homes across the street and breaks the horizon line for the homes on either side of the subject property. This upper floor would contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposed structure therefore attempts to capture additional views from these proposed secondary rooms at the expense of the views from the ceremonial rooms of several other nearby homes. The Design Review Board has often in the past discouraged building designs that obtain such views to such detriment of neighboring homes.

The Design Review Board is strongly encouraged to visit the homes at 2101, 2105, 2108 & 2110, and 2130 Mar East Street and 115 Solano Street to more thoroughly evaluate the potential view and visual impacts which may be caused by the proposed construction.

Floor Area Issues

As previously noted, the requested 3,680 square foot floor area for the proposed duplex would be 1,156 square feet (45.8%) above the maximum floor area permitted for a lot with the dry land area of the subject property. A table has been previously prepared and is again attached that compares the lot size, floor area ratio and proposed floor area of the revised duplex design with other properties in the vicinity. Highlights of this analysis include the following:

Although 14 of the 25 properties shown in the table exceed the floor area ratios for their lot, only 5 of these properties (2386, 2392, 2396, and 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street and 2024 Paradise Drive) exceed their F.A.R. by as much as that requested by the subject application. Three of the homes on Mar East Street are developed on properties with very little (2,713 square feet or less) dry land area. The home at 2024 Paradise Drive has raised continued controversy since its approval, partially due to the visual prominence of the structure from Paradise Drive.

The approved 3,220 square foot duplex at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street will have a floor area 1,426 square feet in excess of the floor area ratio for this 5,127 square foot site. This duplex was approved with a two-story design, and was determined by the Design Review Board to have no significant view or visual impacts on nearby homes.

Only three of the 25 properties listed have been developed with floor areas in excess of 3,000 square feet. The adjacent property ay 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street has recently been approved for a 3,220 square foot duplex, with a floor area exception of 1,426 square feet. The property at 52 Linda Vista Avenue has been developed with 3,471 square feet of floor area on a 9,213 square foot lot, resulting in a floor area overage of 550 square feet.

The only home in the vicinity with an approved floor area greater than that proposed by the revised design for the subject property is the unfinished home at 2024 Paradise Drive, which will eventually have a floor area of 4,189 square feet. This unfinished home is situated on a lot only 137 square feet smaller than the subject property. However, as previously noted, this nearby home has proven to be a controversial project before and since its approval by the Town; Staff does not recommend that the approval of this other residence should be used as a precedent or a baseline for comparison of new housing applications today.

It would appear, by most indicators, that the size of the proposed duplex is still much greater than most other homes in the vicinity. It is again strongly recommended that, if approved, the proposed structure be significantly reduced in size to become more compatible with the size and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

Other Design Issues

Much of the subject property is currently screened from view from Mar East Street by an existing hedge along the front property line. As indicated by the revised story poles, the proposed detached garage would extend very close to this hedge, and would result in the removal of several trees near this structure. The long-term viability of this hedge during and after the construction process, and the potential visual effects of the proposed structures if this hedge were removed, should be carefully evaluated by the Design Review Board.

The revised plans indicate that all existing trees on the site are to remain after construction. However, several of these trees are very close to the location of the proposed structures, including one tree situated in front of the garage door for the detached garage. A detailed landscaping plan, prepared by a landscape architect, should be required to adequately describe the existing and future landscaping for this project.

As noted above, the revised plans still indicate a deck extending off the lower floor bathroom of the upper dwelling unit, with full-height glass windows facing the front of the site. In addition, the hallways between the bedrooms on the upper floor of each dwelling unit would also be faced with full-height windows oriented toward the street. These windows and balconies would be clearly visible from several homes across the street, and would result in unwanted privacy impacts for these homes, as well as the residents of the proposed duplex. In addition, night time light from these routinely used spaces would glare upward toward homes across the street, significantly impacting the evening views of Raccoon Straits. It is recommended that this deck be eliminated and the windows reduced to sizes more customarily associated with bathroom and secondary hallway windows.

At the previous hearing, the Design Review Board was receptive to the overall exterior design, colors and materials of the proposed project. As noted above, a revised colors and materials board has not yet been submitted, but will hopefully be available at the Board meeting for review.

Another issue raised at both previous Design Review Board and Town Council hearings regarding the proposed design concerned the additional building volume created by the vaulted ceiling areas above the living rooms for each proposed dwelling unit. Several Boardmembers and Councilmembers indicated that this open ceiling area unnecessarily adds to the overall mass and bulk of the proposed duplex. This additional building volume was particularly noticeable considering the substantial floor area exception requested as part of this application. The current design of the proposed duplex leaves this aspect of the structure essentially unchanged.

Zoning

The originally designed plans for the proposed duplex were reviewed by Staff for conformance with the development standards for the R-2 zone. The prior Staff report indicated that variances were required for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, along with the requested floor area exception. As noted above, the revised plans now comply with the R-2 lot coverage standards, and would not require a variance for excess lot coverage.

As previously noted, many of the lots along Mar East Street have similar lot configurations, and older nonconforming homes which do not comply with current zoning requirements. Particularly on the bay side of the street, many homes have had to request multiple variances for reduced setbacks and excess lot coverage in order to approve relatively minor additions. Other properties in the vicinity that have recently received variances for reduced setbacks include homes at 2101, 2108, 2200, 2211, 2311, 2322, 2334, 2336 & 2348 Mar East Street (Files #299015, 20108, 298037, 2733, 27212, 27331, 200048, 27217 & 26510), 5 & 7 and 11 & 15 Linda Vista Avenue (Files #299012 & 27302) and 2129, 2298, 2323 and 2355 Paradise Drive (Files #27403, 27731, 26607 & 27728).

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

1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.

The subject property drops away significantly from the street toward the bay, although not as sharply as many other properties along Mar East Street and Paradise Drive. The surrounding properties have similar physical conditions which restrict the location of reasonable building additions. The physical characteristics of the subject property therefore create special circumstances which otherwise would constrain development of the property in a manner consistent with other homes in the vicinity while complying with the requirements of the R-2 zone.

2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.

As stated above, several other homes in this neighborhood have received variances for reduced front yard setbacks.

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

The strict application of the front yard setback requirements would force the entire structure to the center of the site, resulting in a more compact building design. However, the size of this property is less than the minimum lot size in the R-2 zone, which is a physical characteristic that would create a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in complying with these zoning standards.

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

As previously noted, the proposed design would result in significant view, mass and bulk, light and glare, and privacy impacts on neighboring properties. However, the only portion of the proposed construction that requires a variance is the detached garage toward the front of the property. The location of this garage within the required front yard setback would be similar to many other garages and carports in the vicinity. Therefore, the granting of the variance would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

Floor Area Exception

Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Code states that the Design Review Board may grant exceptions to the required floor area ratio requirements if it makes the following two findings:

1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and

2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical layout of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and the dimensions of the lot.

Many of the nearby homes along Mar East Street and in surrounding portions of Old Tiburon have two-story or three-story designs. The proposed duplex would have four separate floors, resulting in a visual size and scale that would be inconsistent with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed construction would generally follow the terrain of the site, cascading down from the street to the bay. However, the extent of the requested variance for reduced front yard setback, combined with a lot coverage only 43.5 square feet (0.6%) under the maximum permitted in this zone, and the excessive floor area requested, appear to indicate an overdevelopment of the property which is incompatible with the physical dimensions of the site.

From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. However, there appears to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception.

Public Comment

Although the revised plans have reduced the size of the proposed duplex by 328 square feet and the height of the proposed duplex structure has been reduced by 1.5 to 2 feet, these modifications have not significantly addressed the concerns repeatedly raised by the Design Review Board, the Town Council and numerous nearby property owners at the previous meeting regarding this project. In particular, the marginal height reduction does not comply with the direction of the Board at its previous meeting, and the Town Council at the appeal hearing, to make substantial reductions in the height of the building.

Unless the applicant is willing to make substantive additional changes to the proposed plans, the resulting building design would be incompatible in size and scale with the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood, and would result in significant view impacts inconsistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Staff believes that applicant’s continued minor modifications to the project design have failed to substantively address these concerns. As a result, it is strongly recommended that the Design Review Board should give specific direction to the applicant regarding significant alterations to the submitted plans, including the following changes:

A reduction in the ridgeline height of the building of at least 5 feet;

Elimination or drastic reduction of the volume of vaulted ceiling areas above the living rooms;

Elimination or drastic reduction in the area of all windows facing the street;

Elimination of all deck spaces facing the front of the property; and

Consideration of a 3-story building design as a means of accomplishing these changes.

These modifications should effectively mitigate the view, mass and bulk, light and glare, and privacy impacts that the current design would have on neighboring properties. The Design Review Board may either continue this request to allow the applicant time to make these changes, or require these modifications as conditions of approval to the application.

1. Conditions of approval

2.    Supplemental application materials

3.    Design Review Board Staff report dated December 14, 2001

4.    Design Review Board Staff Report dated February 1, 2002

5.    Town Council Staff Report dated May 1, 2002

6.    Minutes of the December 20, 2001 Design Review Board meeting

7.    Minutes of the February 7, 2002 Design Review Board meeting

8.    Minutes of the February 21, 2002 Design Review Board meeting

9.    Design Review Board Resolution No. 2002-02

10.    Minutes of the May 1, 2002 Town Council meeting

11.    Goal 3, Principles 7 (A, B, C, D & E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines

12.    Letter from Town of Tiburon to applicant, dated May 17, 2002

13.    Table of lot sizes and floor area information in the vicinity

14.    Revised plans

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 

1. This approval shall be used within three (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 with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on October 10, 2001, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of January 28, 2002, must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.

3.    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.

4.    The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.

5.    All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells.

6.    All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures.

7.    Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to M.M.W.D. landscape regulations, as required by Town Council Ordinance.

8.    Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.

9.    Prior to underfloor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be required. Required documents shall include graphic documentation locating the building on a site plan and including specific dimensions from property lines and other reference points as appropriate, and elevations relative to sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified.

10.    The project shall comply with the following requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District:

a.    The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA standard 13-D (UFC 1003).

b.    Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas (UBC 1210).

c.    Approved spark arresters shall be installed on chimneys (UFC 1101).

d..    A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible vegetation within 30 feet of the structure (UFC 1103).

11.    The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met:

A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed.

A copy of the building permit shall be submitted.

Appropriate fees shall be paid.

The structure’s foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the date of application.

The applicant shall comply with the District’s rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested.

The applicants shall obtain a sewer permit, if necessary, from Marin County Sanitary District No. 5 and pay all applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main. After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection for conformance to standards.

All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met.

The following modifications to the design of the subject duplex shall be made to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit for this project:

A reduction in the ridgeline height of the building of at least 5 feet;

Elimination or drastic reduction of the volume of vaulted ceiling areas above the living rooms;

Elimination or drastic reduction in the area of all windows facing the street;

Elimination of all deck spaces facing the front of the property; and

A 3-story building design may be considered as a means of accomplishing these changes.

Amount

2120 Mar East Street 3,680 7,210 2,524 1,156