TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 2280 MAR EAST STREET; FILE #20306

SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK, WITH A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK.

MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2003 REVIEWED BY: DMW

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

PROJECT DATA:

OWNER: CHARLES AND MIK FLYNN

ADDRESS: 2280 MAR EAST STREET

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 059-194-67

FILE NUMBER: 20306

LOT SIZE: 10,371 SQUARE FEET

ZONING: R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)

GENERAL PLAN: H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

FLOOD ZONE: C

DATE COMPLETE: MARCH 29, 2003

CEQA EXEMPTION: APRIL 17, 2003

PERMIT STREAMLINING

ACT DEADLINE: JUNE 16, 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 an extension to an exterior deck on the west side of the residence at 2280 Mar East Street. The residence on the property is currently undergoing a major remodel. There was no provision for a deck in this location with the design review application for the remodel project. The applicant has stated that the deck would act as a catwalk and provide the only reasonable access to the west side of the residence. The applicant is also requesting approval to increase the height of the clear glass guardrail to be located on the southwest corner of the deck from three feet to six feet. The line of the gaurdrail would be adjusted to enclose the proposed deck.

The subject property is relatively narrow, and the existing structure is built within five feet of the west property line. Because of this configuration, the proposed deck would be located within one foot of the west property line. According to the Zoning Ordinance uncovered decks and balconies such can be located within five feet of the property line. Therefore the applicant is requesting a variance of four feet.

ANALYSIS:

Zoning

Except for the above mentioned variance request for reduced side yard setback, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations of the R-2 zoning district.

Design Issues

As previously stated the new deck would primarily be used as a catwalk to access and maintain the west side of the residence. The applicant has stated that the proposed deck would not be used for living, leisure, entertaining, etc. The deck would be cantilevered from under the residence so there would be no additional piers extending into San Francisco Bay waters. For these reasons, there does not appear to be any significant design issues with the proposed deck.

The applicant is also proposing to increase the height of the guardrail on the southwest side of the deck on the lower level from three feet to six feet. The applicant has stated that this additional height would be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the deck space because it would block some of the strong winds off of the water. In a previous design review application dated August 2002, the applicant proposed to increase the height of this same section of guardrail from three feet to five feet, in addition to several other minor alterations. To mitigate the impact of the proposed alterations, and to prevent possible view impacts from the property at 2260 Mar East Street, staff approved the application with the condition the subject guardrail not exceed three feet in height (See Exhibit #5). Staff maintains that a guardrail exceeding three feet in this location could potentially have adverse view impacts to the property at 2260 Mar East Street. Staff recommends that the Board consider these potential view impacts.

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 partially located below the mean high tide line of the San Francisco Bay. The property is steep and not easily accessible, except from the residence and surrounding decks. This special circumstance deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The proposed deck would relieve the burden of site inaccessibility.

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 variance 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 strict application of the ordinance would result in a deck that would be significantly narrower and shorter, and would not provide the same access the proposed deck would. Not having adequate access to the west side of the residence would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

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

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

Public Comment

Harold Pepperell of 2260 Mar East Street, has submitted a letter stating objections to the proposed project. Mr. Pepperell has stated that the project would effectively bring the two homes closer together, and may limit future additions or improvements to the residence at 2260 Mar East Street. 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 reduced side 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 March 24, 2003.

Applicant’s findings for the variances.

Letter from Harold Pepperell.

Approval notice for previous Staff-level application, dated August 9, 2002.

Plans for the proposed project.

EXHIBIT 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

2280 Mar East Street

FILE #20306

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 24 2003, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.

3.    All necessary permits from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.

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.