TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 220 DIVISO STREET; FILE #20312

MEETING DATE: JULY 3, 2003 REVIEWED BY: DMW

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 220 Diviso Street. The property is located near the intersection of Diviso Street and Centro East Street and has double frontage on these two streets. The topography of the property is relatively level, but the rear of the property drops down to Centro East Street. The existing home is a single-level building comprised of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposal includes the construction of a garage addition, living area addition, a second level bedroom addition, and an interior remodel. The resulting home would be comprised of four bedrooms and four bathrooms. The size of the home would increase from 1,693 square feet to 2,739 square feet, including interior loft spaces. The lot coverage of the property would increase from 26.5% to 30%. The property would meet the requirements for both floor area and lot coverage.

The existing north side of the house is within the required side yard setback area. The applicant is requesting to build a portion of the garage along the same line as the existing north wall, within the required setback area. Therefore the applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setback (6’7" in lieu of the standard eight feet).

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-1 zoning district.

Design Issues

The addition would modify the architectural style of the existing home. The existing home is a modest single level home with low sloping roofs, and simple architectural styling. The proposed home would combine new and old architectural details with the use of steeply pitched cottage style roofs over the garage and the entry "tower", with new divided light windows throughout. The deck railings would be comprised of sturdy wood elements, and there would be two small clerestory windows on the east side of the roof. The first level portions of the building would be comprised of wood shingle siding to replace the existing wood lap siding, and the second level portion of the building would be vertical board-and-batten siding. A color and materials board will be available for review at the Board meeting.

The project would not appear to block important views from any properties in the vicinity. However, the steeply pitched roof on the second level addition would cause the building to be relatively tall compared to other buildings in the immediate vicinity. The section drawing in the application package shows that there would be a certain amount of attic space in the peak of the proposed second level addition, increasing the perceived height of the building. Although there is no single architectural theme in the neighborhood, the Board should consider the compatibility of the proposed architectural style with its surroundings.

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 existing garage is located within the required side yard setback for the property, and the proposed addition would continue this situation. The applicant has stated that the unusual angle formed by the front property line and the side property line creates an unusual circumstance where it is difficult to improve the garage while complying with all required setbacks. The applicant has elected to continue an existing non-conforming situation with the side yard setback while complying with the more visible front yard setback.

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 received various historic variances. More recently, a variance for reduced side yard setback was approved for the property at 280 Loma Avenue, file #29308. Therefore, 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 applicant has stated that it would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly apply the Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: 1). Stepping the garage in to comply with the side yard setback would result in difficulties in constructability and structural integrity of the building; 2). The visual impact of the garage could not be reduced without the proposed design elements; 3). Critical storage space could not be created, and; 4). The owner’s several cars would be parked in the driveway or the street rather than an adequately sized garage.

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

As proposed, the variance for the garage expansion would not appear to have ad adverse impact on views privacy, or otherwise on the properties in the vicinity.

Public Comment

The applicant has submitted signatures from several residents in the vicinity indicating their support for the project, including the signatures from the two directly adjacent residents.

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 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 May 28, 2003.

Applicant’s findings for the variance.

Plans for the proposed project.

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.