TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS

SUBJECT: 28 MEADOWHILL DRIVE; FILE # 20222

MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2002

APPLICANT: PHILIP BANTA (ARCHITECT)

PROPERTY OWNERS: GREG AND LENA SHENKMAN

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301.

PROPOSAL:

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to modify previously approved plans for additions to an existing residence, and for the as-built construction of several retaining walls, on property located at 28 Meadowhill Drive. The property is currently developed with a two-story single-family dwelling.

The following modifications are requested as part of this application:

Increased size of two exterior equipment pads, sheltering pool equipment and an emergency generator. Each pad has a concrete retaining wall to the rear.

Extension of a swimming pool to the rear by approximately 15 feet.

Installation of 6 foot tall metal fencing in the vicinity of the swimming pool. The wrought iron design of the fence would be finished to match existing deer fencing on the site.

Installation of an outdoor barbecue on a patio to the rear of the house.

Installation of a new chimney above the house entry.

Replacement of four California Pepper trees with Italian Stone Pine trees along the southern property line.

Installation of zinc metal roof material on a portion of the second floor on the eastern side of the house. A sample of the material will be present at the meeting for review.

Installation of a 6 foot tall wrought iron driveway gate.

Modification to a series of concrete retaining walls along the southern and western lot lines.

Installation of 3.5 foot tall glass guardrail at the edge of the patio adjacent to the master bedroom.

Installation of a new second story bedroom window facing to the north.

There is no increase in the lot coverage or floor area of this property associated with this request.

Several portions of the subject retaining walls would exceed 6 feet in height within the required setbacks, with a maximum height of 9 feet, 1 inch. As the maximum wall height within the required setbacks is 6 feet, a variance is requested for excess wall height.

HISTORY:

The remodeling of the subject home was first approved by the Design Review Board on January 15, 1998 (File #797165). A series of minor exterior modifications were approved by Staff on September 30, 1999, after the applicant had obtained signatures from potentially affected nearby property owners. Other minor changes were found by Staff to be consistent with the intent of the original approval on January 21, 2000.

On August 4, 2000, the applicants submitted a subsequent application for Staff-level Design Review (File #700148). The project description for this application included modifications to the size, location and design of the walls behind the generator pad, the pool equipment pad and the southern retaining walls, along with an extension of the swimming pool. A set of reduced (11" x 17") plans was submitted with this application with the signatures of several surrounding property owners. The reduced set of plans indicated that the retaining walls would exceed heights of 6 feet at several locations within the required setbacks.

On September 5, 2000, the application was approved by Staff. A condition of approval attached to this application stated that no structures over 6 feet in height within the required setbacks were approved as part of this application.

In early 2002, an inspection of the site by the Building Division revealed that several of the retaining walls had been constructed with heights in excess of 6 feet. The applicant was notified that the walls needed to either be reduced in height to 6 feet or a variance must be obtained for excess wall height.

The definition of the required setbacks and the location of the walls within the setbacks may have contributed to the applicant’s construction of the walls in their current configuration. The designated rear yard of the subject lot situated along the southern property line, with the side yards to the east and west, and the front yard to the north. A 40 foot wide roadway easement curves generally along the western and northern sides of the property, connecting to the public right-of-way of Meadowhill Drive. The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that when such a roadway easement exists, the front and side lot lines (but not the rear lot line) shall not be considered to be the actual property line, but shall instead be the edge of the easement. Therefore, while the applicant believed that all portions of the retaining walls that exceed 6 feet in height were outside the required front and side yard setbacks when measured from the property lines, these walls were, by definition, actually within these required setbacks. No portions of the subject walls exceed 6 feet in height within the required rear yard setback.

Design Issues

Most of the proposed modifications are minor in nature, and would have minimal impacts on surrounding properties. The proposed swimming pool extension and outdoor barbecue area appear to be well screened and/or distant from neighboring residences.

The general location and design of the pool equipment and generator pads were both approved under the previous Staff-level application. However, the size of both pads has been increased, resulting in additional equipment area facing the exterior of the property. The pool equipment would be screened by a series of metal gates. The generator is generally unscreened from view from neighboring properties, although a mature oak tree provides some screening. As a result, noise from this equipment could affect nearby homes, particularly if the noise bounces off the retaining walls to the rear of each pad. The Design Review Board should consider whether additional screening or noise enclosures should be installed in response to the expanded pad sizes.

The retaining walls along the southern and western lot lines have an unfinished concrete exterior. At least one other wall on the property near the driveway has been finished with an olive colored stucco. Landscaping has been planted in front of these walls, but would not help in screening the mass of these walls when viewed from the roadway for some time. The Board may wish to consider additional, faster-growing plant materials, such as myoporum laetum, if better landscape screening is deemed to be necessary.

The purpose of these retaining walls is to provide level yard areas around the south and west sides of the house. None of the provided yard spaces is particularly expansive. However, the provision of this recreational amenity for the home would appear to come at the expense of creating a view of extensive retaining walls from the roadway.

The proposed Italian Stone Pine trees (pinus pinea) are listed in Sunset Western Garden Book as growing at moderate rate to 40 to 80 feet in height, and therefore would not be classified as undesirable trees by the Tiburon Tree Ordinance. Objections have been received from two uphill neighbors regarding these trees, with concerns that, over time, these trees could significantly block views for nearby homes. The previously approved California Pepper trees (schinus molle) are fast-growing trees, but have a maximum height of only 40 feet. The Board should carefully evaluate the height of the subject trees and their potential for future view blockage.

Several other properties in the same or similar zones have previously received variances for increased fence or wall height, including 10 Venado Drive (File #299028), 6 Round Hill Terrace (File #20131), 34 Terrace Court (File #20137), 55 Upper North Terrace (File #200017), 22 Seafirth Place (File #20216), and 22 Juno Road (File #200031). In most cases, these overheight fences or walls have been approved to mitigate potential privacy impacts, or address topographical constraints in providing deer protection. However, a recent variance application for similar as-built fence and walls with a maximum height of 9 feet, 8 inches was recently approved for the property at 140 Esperanza Street (File #20205).

Zoning

Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone with the exception of the previously noted variance for excess wall heights.

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

1. 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 property is bounded on three sides by Meadowhill Drive and a roadway easement leading to two other homes. The presence of the easement moves the defined front and side lot lines 40 feet in from the front and side property lines, substantially reducing the area in which yard area or overheight walls could otherwise be located. These site constraints therefore create special circumstances which would deprive the applicant of the privileges of developing the lot in a manner enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.

2. 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.

As stated above, several other homes in the same or similar zones have received variances for excess wall heights. However, the Design Review Board should consider whether the need for the overheight walls to create level yard areas would be consistent with the reasons for similar privileges granted to these other homes, or whether the subject request would grant a special privilege to the applicant.

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

The removal or reduction in height of the subject retaining walls would significantly reduce the amount of available yard space for the subject residence. The Design Review Board should consider whether the reduction in available yard space necessitated by the strict application of the maximum wall heights would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship on the applicant. The need to remove structures built without first obtaining the necessary Design Review approvals does not, in itself, constitute a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship.

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

The subject retaining walls do not create view or privacy impacts on neighboring property owners. However, the visual mass and bulk of the walls would be clearly visible from Meadowhill Drive and the adjoining roadway easement. The Design Review Board should consider whether appropriate landscaped screening would provide an adequate visual buffer to mitigate the undesirable visual appearance of the overheight walls.

From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there may be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested wall height variance. The Design Review Board should deliberate on the requested application and if evidence is available to support the necessary findings.

Public Comment

To date Staff has received one letter and one phone call from neighboring residents raising objections to the Italian Stone Pine trees. The applicant has contacted many of the other neighboring property owners, several of whom have signed plans indicating their support for the remainder of the subject application.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles). If the Board wishes to approve the project, the necessary findings should be made, and Staff would recommend that the attached conditions of approval be applied.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Conditions of approval

2.    Application and supplemental materials

3.    Letter from Michael and Jacqueline Etemad, dated June 11, 2002

4. Submitted plans

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 with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on May 29, 2002, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of June 11, 2002, 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.