April 3, 2003 - Staff Report

TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 80 PAMELA COURT; FILE #20303

SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND EXCESS LOT COVERAGE.

MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2003 REVIEWED BY: DMW

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

PROJECT DATA:

OWNER: MICHAEL AND MARY ROMO

APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: KOICHI PAUL NII

ADDRESS: 80 PAMELA COURT

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 034-211-19

FILE NUMBER: 20303

LOT SIZE: 7,350 SQUARE FEET

ZONING: R-1-BA (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BEL-AIRE)

GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

FLOOD ZONE: C

DATE COMPLETE: MARCH 13, 2003

CEQA EXEMPTION: APRIL 3, 2003

PERMIT STREAMLINING

ACT DEADLINE: JUNE 2, 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 construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on a property located at 80 Pamela Court. The topography of the subject property is relatively flat, but it is located on an acute angled corner, bounded by Pamela Court and Blackfield Drive, which confines development to some degree. The proposal includes the construction of a garage, entryway addition, and an extensive interior remodel. An existing accessory structure on the left side of the residence would be demolished to accommodate the new garage.

The size of the proposed garage is approximately 720 square feet, and the entryway addition would encompass 50 square feet. The lot coverage of the property would increase from 24.8% to 31.7%. Since the allowable lot coverage is 30% the applicant is requesting a variance for excess lot coverage.

The proposed garage would be located to the left of the existing home near the acute angle of the property. Because of the unusual lot configuration, there is no side yard area on the left side of the property. As a result the garage would be located in the rear and front yard setback areas. Therefore the applicant is requesting variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks (front- 9 feet in lieu of the minimum 20 feet; rear- 3 feet in lieu of the minimum 22 feet).

ANALYSIS:

Zoning

Except for the above mentioned variance requests for excess lot coverage and reduced front and rear yard setbacks, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations of the R-1-BA zoning district.

Design Issues

The addition would maintain the architectural style that is prevalent in the area. The gabled features associated with additions would match the roofline of the existing residence. There would be a few minor window changes, and two skylights would be installed in the roof of the residence.

Although the proposed garage would be located within the front yard setback, it would not appear to be closer to the Pamela Court than the existing structure. There is a large amount of existing vegetation to the left of the residence that would screen the project from Blackfield Drive. The garage addition would not be located adjacent to any other homes. The colors and materials of the additions would match the existing structure. For these reasons, staff foresees no design issues with the 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:

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 parcel is located at the corner of Blackfield Drive and Pamela Court. The intersection of these streets creates an acute angle in the subject property. This unusual physical characteristic limits the areas in which improvements can be located. The applicant has chosen the area that is most conducive for development, which happens to be within the front and rear yard setback areas.
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.

According to the Town’s records, several properties in the immediate vicinity have been granted similar or greater variance requests. Approving the requested variances would not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant.
The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.

The applicant is requesting to enlarge the residence, within the floor area restrictions, without constructing a second story element. Two story structures are not typical in the Bel Aire neighborhood, and would be more intrusive than the proposed ground floor addition. Because a second story element would not likely be approved, it would be a hardship to strictly apply the Ordinance in regards to lot coverage.

As previously stated, the proposed garage is located in the area most conducive for development. Because a garage built to comply with the required front and rear yard setbacks would result in having no street access, it would be a hardship to strictly apply the Ordinance in regards to front and rear yard setbacks.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.

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

Public Comment

Most of the residents on Pamela Court have submitted letters indicating their support of the proposed project. All correspondence is attached for reference.

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 variance for excess lot coverage and reduced front and rear yard setbacks, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

EXHIBITS:

Conditions of Approval.

Application and supplemental materials dated March 3, 2003.

Applicant’s findings for the variances.

Letters from adjacent residents.

Plans for the proposed project.

EXHIBIT 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

80 Pamela Court

FILE #20303

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 March 3, 2003, 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.    No lighting shall be installed 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.