TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 111 SUGARLOAF DRIVE; FILE #20314

MEETING DATE: JULY 3, 2003 REVIEWED BY: DMW

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.

BACKGROUND:

On May 1, 2003, the applicant requested approval for a 3,749 square foot home that was comprised of two levels, in addition to a garage, a swimming pool, and various landscaping improvements. The proposed home was located in an area of the property that was previously been graded flat. The structure was to be recessed into the ground up to nine feet in certain locations. The roof of the structure had a slope of 3 and 12. The proposed home had a Mediterranean appearance with stucco siding, stone accents, and pillars supporting the entryway and trellis at the rear of the building.

When the Design Review Board first reviewed the application, there were several concerns regarding the potential view impacts of the project. The project would have appeared to impact the view from several properties in the vicinity, but especially from the property at 120 Sugarloaf Drive. Currently, the owners of 120 Sugarloaf Drive enjoy views to the south, east and west over the San Francisco Bay, and in the southwesterly direction to the City of San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. This southwesterly view would have been significantly impacted by the proposed dwelling. There were also some peripheral concerns about the possible loss of daylight for the properties to the east of the project, and the potential view impacts from the landscaping improvements on the site. Based on these concerns, the Board continued the public hearing until so the applicant could make any modifications to address the concerns of the Board.

The applicant has now submitted a revised plan for this project which significantly reduces the view impact across the site. This is accomplished by bringing much of the floor area from the second level down to the first level. The floor elevation of the first level is lowered by one foot from the original plan. The roofline has also been flattened and lowered in the revised design.

The landscaping improvements throughout the site remain largely unchanged. The swimming pool has been relocated to the west and pulled in adjacent to the building. The site would still be terraced to accommodate gardens, and low shrub vegetation would be planted throughout the site. A six foot high wrought iron fence, as in the original plan, would enclose a portion of the property.

While the low sprawling design of the revised home reduces visual impacts of the site, it forces the home into a variance situation. The design increases the lot coverage on the site and reduces the setbacks of the structure. The applicant is requesting variances for increased lot coverage (22.1% in lieu of 15%), reduced front yard setback (16’6" in lieu of 30 feet), and reduced side yard setback (10 feet in lieu of 15 feet). At 4,360 square feet, the size of the revised home would be greater than the original home. Therefore a floor area exception of 710 square feet is also proposed.

Design Issues

It appears that the applicant has responded directly to the Board’s concerns with the revisions that are proposed. The reduction in size of the second level element of the home reduces the structure’s prominence on the lot, and alleviates most of the view impacts across the site. However, it appears that there would still be a significant impact on the view from the property at 120 Sugarloaf Drive. It is recommended that the Board consider the following guidelines when reviewing the impact of the project:

Goal 3 Principle 1, of the Hillside Design Guidelines states dwellings should be located so that they interfere minimally with the views of adjacent buildings. Do not locate dwellings on highest point of property if in doing so it will obscure view of another dwelling.

Similar to the original application, the revised plan shows that the home would be located near the highest point of the property. Although this appears to make good site planning sense, this location interferes with the views from the residence at 120 Sugarloaf Drive.

Goal 3, Principle 7, of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that although some view blockage is inevitable, partial view blockage should be avoided whenever possible. View protection is most important for ceremonial rooms which include the dining room, living room, and kitchen.

It appears that the revised project would significantly lessen the view impact from the dining room and living room of the property at 120 Sugarloaf Drive. However, the view from the kitchen would still be significantly impacted by the project.

In response to the floor plan and site planning changes of the project, the design of the home has been modified accordingly. The resulting design of the home would be more contemporary than the previous Mediterranean design. The design would make use of rigid rectangular features accentuated by a flat roofline. The windows would be mostly gliding and casement windows rather than the double-hung and divided light windows in the original design. The number of columns would be reduced in the revised design and they would be more basic and geometric to conform to the contemporary theme. The colors and materials of the revised home would be similar to the original design. The building would have stucco siding with stone accents with a slate roof. A color and materials board will be available for review at the Board meeting.

Zoning

As previously stated, the project does not meet the required side yard setback, front yard setback, lot coverage limit, and floor area ratio for the property. The project appears to meet the remaining standards of the R-0-2 zoning district.

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 submitted a survey of several properties in the vicinity in regards to the floor area ratio and the floor area exceptions granted for each respective property. This information is attached (exhibit #2). Based on this survey, the size and scale of the proposed home would be compatible with the predominant pattern established by the existing structures in the neighborhood.

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.

It appears that the proposed structure would be compatible with the dimensions of the lot and surrounding physical features. The prominent location and terraced topography of the property would require a low sprawling design, which the applicant has achieved.

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.

The fact that the subject property is in the line of site of several important views is an unusual characteristic. The applicant has stated that the requested variances are necessary to accommodate the visual assets of the properties in the vicinity.

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 applicant has submitted a survey of properties in the immediate vicinity that have been granted similar variances to those that are proposed. This information is attached (exhibit #2). According to this survey, the granting of the variances would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the neighborhood.

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

The strict application of the Ordinance would result in a significantly smaller home, which would be inconsistent with the other structures in the vicinity. The alternative would be to bury the home into the existing grade even more than what is proposed, resulting in a practical difficulty and 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.

The granting of the requested variances to enable the lowering and "spreading out" of the home would be beneficial to the properties in the vicinity.

Public Comment

A letter submitted by Alan Lefkof, representing the Marinero Homeowner’s Association, requests that the hearing for the project be continued to the July 17, 2003, Design Review Board meeting. Mr. Lefkof states that because the July 3, 2003, DRB meeting is so close to a holiday, many of the interested parties would not be able to attend the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07, 4.03.05, 4.02.08 (Guiding Principles, and Variance Findings by Acting Body, and Floor Area Exception Findings) and the Hillside Design Guidelines 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, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and all necessary findings can be made for the requested variances and floor area exception, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

EXHIBITS:

Conditions of Approval.

Applicants variance and FAR survey

Hillside Design Guidelines Goal 3, Principles 1 and 7

Letter submitted by Alan Lefkof representing Marinero HOA

Staff report dated May 1, 2003

Minutes from the May 1, 2003 DRB meeting

Revised plans for the proposed project.

1. This approval shall be used within three (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 and plans dated by the Town of Tiburon on June 20, 2003, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.

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.

4.    The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.

5.    All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures.

6.    The location of the story poles must be certified by a licensed surveyor. Any changes in the story poles must be approved by the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

7.    Prior to under-floor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be required. Required documents shall include graphic documentation locating the building on a site plan and including specific dimensions from property lines and other reference points as appropriate, and elevations relative to sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified.

8.    The project shall comply with the following requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District:

a.    The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA standard 13-D. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer (UFC 1003).

b.    Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas (UBC 310).

c.    Approved spark arresters shall be installed on chimneys (UFC 1109).

d.    A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible vegetation within 30 feet of the structure (UFC 1103).

e.    The water pump, if required, for domestic supply shall be sized to supply the automatic fire sprinkler system.

9.    The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met:

a.    A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed.

b.    A copy of the building permit shall be submitted.

c.    Appropriate fees shall be paid.

d.    The structure’s foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the date of application.

e.    The applicant shall comply with the District’s rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested.

10.    All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met.