March 6, 2003 - Staff Report

TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 116 SUGARLOAF DRIVE; FILE #20244

SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 116 SUGARLOAF DRIVE, WITH VARIANCES FOR EXCESS BUILDING HEIGHT, REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND EXCESS FENCE/WALL HEIGHT. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION.

MEETING DATE: MARCH 6, 2003 REVIEWED BY: DMW

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

PROJECT DATA:

OWNER: JAY AND TRACI MILLER

APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: ANTHONY TOBIAS/ SCHEIDEGGER & TOBIAS ARCHITECTURE

ADDRESS: 116 SUGARLOAF DRIVE

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 058-311-05

FILE NUMBER: 20244

LOT SIZE: 14,010

ZONING: RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN)

GENERAL PLAN: M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

FLOOD ZONE: C

DATE COMPLETE: FEBRUARY 18, 2003

CEQA EXEMPTION: MARCH 6, 2003

PERMIT STREAMLINING

ACT DEADLINE: MAY 5, 2003

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303.

PROPOSAL:

The applicant has submitted a request to remodel and construct additions to an existing single-family residence located at 116 Sugarloaf Drive. The subject parcel is located on the east side of Sugarloaf Drive, which slopes steeply towards the direction of Paradise Drive. The existing home is considered a legal non-conforming structure, which does not conform to the following zoning regulations; front and side yard setback requirements, lot coverage requirements, floor area requirements, and height requirements. According to Town records variances were not previously granted for excess building height and excess lot coverage.

The house was constructed in this fashion mainly because of the topographical constraints of the site. The structure is located in close proximity to the street to utilize as much of the flat area of the site as possible. The rear of the building is comprised of a very tall wall, and there is a series of decks off the rear of the building as well. There is also un-permitted work that was done on the home including the creation of floor area at the basement level and bedroom level.

The applicant is proposing to extensively remodel the main level of the home, and maintain the existing conditions of the lower levels while reinforcing the structure in areas where it is currently failing. The appearance of the home would be significantly modified. The exterior improvements would include a contemporary façade, a low profile roofline, and updated materials throughout the home. All of the existing decks off of the rear of the structure would be removed and replaced with smaller cantilevered decks. A new overhang would be constructed over the entryway, and the front terrace area would be enlarged.

According to Town records, the approved floor area for the structure is approximately 2,900 square feet. The applicant is seeking approval for the previously un-permitted floor area at the basement level and the bedroom level, resulting in a total of 3,667 square feet. The maximum floor area for the property is 3,401 square feet; therefore a floor area exception (of 266 square feet is requested.

The applicant is also requesting variances for excess building height (49’3" in lieu of the maximum 30 feet), reduced front yard setback (6 feet in lieu of the minimum 30 feet), reduced side yard setback (8 feet lieu of the minimum 15 feet), and excess fence/wall height (12 feet in the setback area in lieu of the maximum of 6 feet). Further detail on the proposed variances will follow.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning

As previously mentioned, the proposed remodel would not comply with several zoning regulations. Details on the requested variances are as follows:

Excess Building Height The height of the existing home is 49’5". The height of the proposed structure would be 49’3". Although there would be a slight reduction in the overall height, the new roofline of the home would be taller in different places than the existing roofline. The new roofline reaches its highest point above the dining room, which well above the 30 foot maximum. Therefore a variance is required.

Reduced Front Yard Setback The required front yard setback for the home is 30 feet. Much of the existing structure encroaches on the front yard setback area. However, the garage is proposed to be reconstructed, and the new walls of the garage would remain within the setback area. The overhang above the front entrance is the closest element of the building to the front property line. The setback from the overhang would be six feet, which is approximately three feet closer than the existing overhang. Therefore a variance is required.

Reduced Side Yard Setback The existing home is approximately eight feet from the property line on the right side, which does not comply with the required 15 foot setback. There would be new features within eight feet of the property line such as the reconfigured rotunda, front patio wall, and rear corner of the living room. Therefore a variance is required.

Excess Wall Height The applicant is proposing to construct a new trash enclosure on the left side of the residence. The wall enclosing the trash area would reach a height of 12 feet from grade. Because the wall would be located in the side yard setback area, a variance is required.

Floor Area Exception According to Town records, there are two areas of the existing home that were constructed without the appropriate permits; the basement level and the new laundry room at the bedroom level. The square footage of the basement area is approximately 940 square feet, of which 619 square feet counts towards floor area. The laundry room is proposed to be 116 square feet, all of which counts towards floor area. The proposed floor area of the home exceeds the floor area limit by 266 square feet.

Design Issues

The applicant has indicated that the main goal of the project is to update the appearance of the existing residence, and reconstruct the parts of the structure that are failing. The existing home has tall steeply pitched roofs with wood shingles. The building has sharp abrupt angles throughout. The siding is wood shingle, and there are large wood decks built on piers off of the back of the structure.

The remodeled home would have a low, flat roof, faced with tinned copper. Many of the sharp angles would be rounded, such as the rotunda and the front terrace. The siding of the home would be stucco, and the doors and windows would be aluminum. The wood decks at the rear of the building would be removed and replaced with smaller more integrated decks. The front overhang would be comprised of tempered glass, as well as the overhang off of the dining room at the rear of the residence. A color and materials board will be made available at the Board meeting.

The project would result in a contemporary design that would appear different than most of the homes in the vicinity. However, there is no single common architectural theme in the neighborhood, so the remodeled home would not appear to be inconsistent with its surroundings. Although the residence would have a low profile from the street, the new roofline would be taller in some places than the existing roof. However, the potential view impacts of the project appear to be less than significant.

The use of copper, aluminum, and tempered glass throughout the structure may cause excess reflection and glare. It is recommended that the Board carefully consider the use of these materials. It is also recommended that the Board consider the construction of the six foot stucco wall to be located on the left side of the garage. This wall would extend fairly close to the street which could cause line-of-sight impacts to passing motorists. Since there is existing vegetation that provides natural screening of the site, a low railing may be more appropriate in this location.

Variance

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

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.

All of the requested variances stem from the same unusual site characteristic; the significant slope on the property. Many other properties in the RO-2 zoning district are larger in size and do not have an average slope of over 50%.
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.

The requested variances would not constitute a special privilege because properties on the east side of Sugarloaf Drive in the immediate vicinity have been issued the same or similar variances.
The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.

It would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly apply the Ordinance in this case and require the applicant to rebuild the existing home to meet the required setbacks and building height requirements. The only reasonably flat area of the site is close to the street. To build a structure more than 30 feet away from the front property line and 15 feet away from the side property lines, and to modify this existing house to a maximum height of 30 feet, as suggested by the zoning ordinance, would create significant practical, engineering and structural problems.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

As proposed, the project would not result in significant privacy or other impacts detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

Floor Area Exception

In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Board must make the following findings as required by Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:

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.

The applicant has suggested that the remodeled home is lower in height than the existing structure, and appears less massive as viewed from the street. The proposed floor area exception would not change the visual size and scale because the improvements would occur inside the envelope of the existing structure.
The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics 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.

The applicant has suggested that the building is compatible with the characteristics of the site because the there are no other possible areas to construct a home on the subject parcel.

Public Comment

A letter from Frank Sabastian, owner of 120 Sugarloaf Drive, has been submitted outlining his concerns with the proposed project. Mr. Sabastian believes that the modification of the roof line would adversely impact the views from his property. The walls for the trash enclosure might also present a view impact for Mr. Sabastian. The use of reflective materials, such as copper on the building’s fascia, could adversely impact the adjacent neighbors.

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) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. 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 variances for excess building height, reduced front and side yard setbacks, excess wall height, and the floor area exception, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

EXHIBITS:

Conditions of Approval

Application and supplemental materials dated December 23, 2002.

Applicant’s findings for the variance.

Applicant’s clarification of the floor area exception request.

Letter submitted by Mr. Frank Sabastian.

Plans for the proposed project.

EXHIBIT 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

116 Sugarloaf Drive

FILE #20244

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 December 23, 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 fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down-light type fixtures.

4.    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.