On October 1, 2002, the applicant submitted a staff-level design review application for a 140 square foot gazebo in the rear yard and a six foot high deer fence to be located on the property at 97 Round Hill Road. The fence is proposed to be located along the south, east, and west property lines. The application was reviewed for completeness and the courtesy notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors on October 3, 2002.

A letter dated October 10, 2002, was submitted by the appellants regarding their concerns of the project. The main concerns were about the potential view impacts of the fence, and the potential inconsistency of the fence and gazebo with existing neighborhood character. The appellants also had peripheral concerns regarding the newly constructed home at 97 Round Hill Road. These concerns were that construction materials were still on the site, the approved shingle siding was not completed on the entire house, and that lattice work had been installed on the deck of the new home without proper review.

Staff reviewed these concerns and refined those that had bearing on the subject application. Staff determined that the proposed location of the gazebo would not be appropriate as it would appear to loom over the properties that are down hill, and compromise the integrity of the engineered hillside. Therefore, the project was conditioned to ensure that the gazebo be pulled back off the steep slope and be located on the flat area of the rear yard. It was apparent that there was construction debris throughout the site such as hay bales and silt fencing. The project was also conditioned so these materials are removed prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The Appellant has cited three grounds upon which the appeal is based (Exhibit #1):

Ground #1: The installation of a fence along the shared property line between 97 Round Hill Road and 85 Round Hill Road would be a view impact. The residents at 85 Round Hill Road would be forced to look at the fence while most of the fence would be out of view from the residents at 97 Round Hill Road. In addition, there is a grade change between these two properties so the fence would appear to be 10-12 feet high as seen from 85 Round Hill Road.

Staff Response: The appellant has included in the appeal photographs depicting what the fence might look like if installed. There is no question that the fence would clearly be seen from the living areas of 85 Round Hill Road. However, according to the Guiding Principles and the Hillside Design Guidelines, the view of a particular structure is not particularly a problem. Goal 3, Principle 7 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states, "Remember too that, once built, the new structure becomes part of a view not a block to the view. It is the change in the view that is so difficult to accept." The problem occurs when an improvement becomes a view blockage to landscape features. Goal 3, Principle 7 also states, "Blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other less well-known landmarks." It should be noted that less notable views like woodlands or meadows should also be preserved when possible. However, there currently do not appear to any "important" landscape features in view when looking at the project site from the appellant’s homes.

In addition, the design of the proposed fence is wire mesh with redwood posts. This type of fence design is largely transparent, and is much less intrusive than a solid fence. Prior to the completion of the construction at 97 Round Hill Road, the hillside in the rear yard was graded carefully, and the majority of the area was landscaped. This vegetation, when it matures, will act as additional screening between adjacent homes, and would also serve as a backdrop to the proposed fence, making it less prominent. For these reasons the proposed fence would not appear to have an adverse impact on views from adjacent homes.

Ground #2: The fence and the gazebo would be in contrast with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. None of the surrounding properties contain fences, so the proposed fence would not be consistent with the "open" characteristics of the neighborhood. The gazebo appears to be of "kit" construction and would be dissimilar to any structures in the vicinity, and the proposed placement on an area of unnatural grade is objectionable.

Staff Response: Upon a site inspection, it is clear that most of the adjacent properties do not have fences. The Guiding Principles state that projects should bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity in regards to height size and bulk; a good relationship to the surroundings is important. Staff determined that the installation of a fence where one currently does not exist does not mean the fence is inherently inconsistent with the surroundings. The design of the proposed fence is subtle when compared to alternative fence designs; therefore it is an appropriate design for this location.

The Zoning Ordinance does not address the methods for construction, but rather the resulting product. In regards to the proposed gazebo, the applicant has indicated that it would be constructed of wood and painted white, and would have wood shingles on the roof. The main residence has siding that is comprised of wood shingles, and the trim on the building is white. These color and material schemes appear to be consistent. The placement of the gazebo was of concern because it was proposed to be cut into the hillside below the lawn area. Staff has conditioned the project so the gazebo would be located closer to the main residence, on the flat lawn area.

Ground #3: The applicant should comply with approved Design Review application for the residence at 97 Round Hill Road, namely that the structure be shingled all the way around, and that all landscaping be performed according to the submitted plans.