TO:
Design Review BoardFROM:
Brian Lynch, Associate PlannerSUBJECT:
23 Sonora Court; file #702136Site plan and architectural review for additions to an existing single-family residence.
MEETING DATE
: October 17, 2002 REVIEWED BY: DMW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PROJECT DATA:
Applicant/Owner/Architect: Michael Partow
Address: 23 Sonora Court
Assessor Parcel Number: 055-101-08
File Number: 702136
Lot Size: 9,384 square feet
Zoning: R-1 (single-family residential)
General Plan: M-H (medium-high density residential)
Flood Zone: C
Date Complete: August 30, 2002
CEQA Exemption: September 19, 2002
Permit Streamlining
Act Deadline: November 18, 2002
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).
PROPOSAL:
On October 3, 2002, the Design Review Board considered a request to construct additions to a single-family residence located at 23 Sonora Court. There were a number of concerns voiced from the public and the Board regarding the project’s impact on surrounding properties. The Board voted to continue the item to the October 17, 2002, Board meeting so the applicant could revise the project to address the Board’s concerns.
The applicant has submitted revised plans which attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Board. The revised plans indicate that the new floor area would add approximately 1,050 square feet, bringing the house to approximately 2,770 square feet (See Exhibit #6). The project would comply with the limit for floor area of 2,938 square feet.
The plans indicate that the existing carport would be enclosed to create a two car garage. However, the application cannot be processed with this element of the plan because the existing carport is within the front-yard setback area. A variance application would be required to approve any addition to or enclosure of the carport area. Therefore, any improvements to the existing carport are not part of this application, and it is recommended that the Design Review Board disregard this portion of the application (See Condition #5).
ANALYSIS:
Zoning
As conditioned, the project appears to be in conformance with the development regulations of the R-1 zoning district in respect to required setbacks, lot coverage, floor area, and height.
Design Issues
The key design issues discussed at the October 3, 2002, Board meeting, are listed below. The applicant has made revisions to the plans in response to these design issues. To clearly represent the new plan, the applicant’s responses to each design issue are also listed below.
Design Issue: The height of the structure at the southwest corner should be clarified (story pole #1); ensure that it does not exceed 30 feet.
Applicant’s response: The roof of the main portion of the structure would be a low arching roof to replace the existing flat roof. This effectively reduces the height of the structure at the south corners. The southwestern most point of the structure would be at an elevation of 154’-7 ½" rather than the previous height of 157’-7 ½". This change ensures that this corner of the structure would not exceed 30 feet in height.
Design Issue: The size of the arched clerestory window should be reduced.
Applicant’s Response: The revised plan shows that the foyer would be modified and lowered. The overall height of the clerestory window would be reduced by almost seven feet. The highest point of the clerestory window would be level with the roofline of the main portion of the residence, and would not protrude above the roof of the garage impacting views from adjacent properties.
Design Issue: The Franks have a view toward Mt. Tamalpais at approximately 45 degrees across the southeast corner of the existing residence. This view should be maintained as much as possible.
Applicant’s response: The family room would not be expanded in the eastward direction, toward the Frank residence. A rounded bay window would be added to the south side of the family room, but would not interfere with the 45 degree angle line of sight across the corner of the existing residence (See Exhibit #5).
Design Issue: The window on the east side of the garden room should be eliminated because it could create light pollution and impact privacy.
Applicant’s response: According to the revised plan, the window on the east side of the garden room would not be installed.
Design Issue: The plans should clearly show the trees that are proposed to be removed, and any new trees to be planted.
Applicant’s response: The revised plan indicates the trees that are proposed to be removed. The plan also indicates a row of Pittosporum to be planted along the west property line.
Other minor design changes include the installation of a skylight over the kitchen, the relocation of two previously proposed skylights above the garden room, modification of entryway stairs to accommodate the new foyer, relocation of guest bathroom to the south of the carport rather than the west, and construction of new storage space in the rear of the carport. These changes, in addition to the revisions mentioned above, appear to address the concerns of both the Board and the neighbors. The proposed project also appears to be consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines.
Public Comment
To date, no public comment has been received regarding the revised application.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles), and the Hillside Design Guidelines. If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, and the Hillside Design Guidelines, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached conditions of approval.
EXHIBITS:
Conditions of Approval
Application and supplemental materials dated August 15, 2002
Revised project statistics
Letter from the applicant addressing the design revisions
Line of site demonstration from 11 Sonora Court
Revised plans prepared for the project
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
23 Sonora Court
FILE #702136
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.
The development of this project shall conform to the application received by the Town of Tiburon on July 15, 2002, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.
All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner, and no lights shall be placed in the wells.
All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down-light type fixtures.
The carport enclosure portion of the project shall not be approved with this application.
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.