TO: Design Review Board

FROM: Brian Lynch, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: 23 Sonora Court; File #20238

Site plan and architectural review for the conversion of a carport to a garage, with a variance for reduced front yard setback.

MEETING DATE: November 21, 2002 REVIEWED BY: DMW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PROJECT DATA:

Applicant/Owner/Architect: Michael Partow

Address: 23 Sonora Court

Assessor Parcel Number: 055-101-08

File Number: 20238

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: November 4, 2002

CEQA Exemption: November 21, 2002

Permit Streamlining

Act Deadline: January 20, 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 17, 2002, the Design Review Board reviewed and approved the proposed additions to the single family residence at 23 Sonora Court (File #702136). Under the purview of file #702136, the applicant requested the Board review the conversion of the carport to a garage. The Board informed the applicant that a separate application would have to be filed to review the enclosure of the carport because of the non-conforming nature of the existing carport. Therefore, the applicant has subsequently filed this application.

The proposed project would enclose the existing carport by adding a wall on the west side of the structure and two garage doors on the north side. The new wall on the west side of the structure would have two windows, and would be a continuation of the wall of the approved garden room located to the south of the carport. The garage doors are proposed to be individual sectional roll-up doors.

The enclosed carport would be defined as a two car garage. A variance is required because the proposed project is considered new construction within the front yard setback area. The applicant is requesting a reduced front yard setback of 3’4" in lieu of the required 15 feet.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning

Except for the above mentioned variance, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining regulation of the R-1 zoning district.

Design Issues

The proposed enclosure of the carport is congruous with the existing and approved structures on the site. There does not appear to be any adverse impacts to view and privacy to adjacent homes. For these reasons, staff foresees no design issues with the proposed project.

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:

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 applicant has suggested that because of the steepness of the lot, it would be impossible to place the existing carport inside the property and beyond the required front yard setback. The strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties because most of the properties in the vicinity have enclosed garages.

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.

There are enclosed garages located within the front yard setback on the following properties in the vicinity: 526 Comstock Drive, 534 Comstock Drive, 528 Silverado Drive, 7 Sierra Court, and 11 Sierra Court. The proposed garage would be consistent with the enclosed garages on other properties in the vicinity, therefore the variance would not grant a special privilege to the applicant.

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

The applicant has suggested that it would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly enforce the Ordinance and not allow the carport enclosure because the existing open carport does not provide adequate security for the property inside.

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

The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity because the existing structure would not be expanded; the existing space would simply be enclosed. The proposed project would not have any view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties.

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 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 reduce front yard setback, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

EXHIBITS:

Conditions of Approval

Application and supplemental materials dated October 7, 2002.

Findings for the variance as submitted by the applicants.

Plans for the project.

EXHIBIT 1  CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL    23 Sonora Court 

FILE #20238

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 October 22, 2002, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.

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.