|
Project Title: |
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Approval of a Development Plan for Addition of a Rooftop Deck and Juliet balcony. |
|
County File(s): |
CDDP24-03011 |
|
Appellants: |
Heman Patel and Aditi Shastri |
|
Applicants: |
Chieh and Kayne Barclay |
|
Owners: |
Same as Applicants |
|
Zoning: |
R-6 Single-Family Residential District (R-6), Kensington Combining District (-K), Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (-TOV) |
|
General Plan: |
Residential Medium Density (RM), formally Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) |
|
Site Address/Location |
2 Highland Boulevard / APN: 572-013-006 |
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
The proposed project is exempt under, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e)(1) |
|
Project Planner: |
Dulce Reckmeyer-Walton, Planner II - phone: (925) 655-2854 and email: dulce.reckmeyer-walton@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny the Appeal and approve the application as identified in Section II (recommendation) of the staff report. |
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is a hearing on an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Development Plan to allow the addition of an approximately 568-square-foot rooftop deck extending towards the eastern property line above existing living space and a new approximately 7-square-foot Juliet balcony on the southwestern portion of an existing single-family residence. The new gross floor area will be 2,189 square feet, where 2,600 square feet is the maximum gross floor area.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. OPEN the public hearing on the Development Plan permit to allow the construction of a rooftop deck and Juliet balcony, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing.
2. DENY the appeal by Heman Patel and Aditi Shastri and APPROVE County File #CDDP24-03011, a Development Plan to allow the addition of a new rooftop deck with railing, and a new Juliet balcony, as recommended by staff.
3. FIND that the proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e)(1)
4. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. BACKGROUND
A Kensington Design Review application for the proposed exterior modifications was submitted to the Department on November 17, 2023. In accordance with the provisions of the Kensington Combining District Ordinance a notice was sent to neighboring property owners within 300-feet of the subject property. During the 34-day notification period, the Department of Conservation and Development received one letter requesting a public hearing and on April 1, 2024, the applicant submitted a Development Plan application to move forward with the project. The development plan application was heard by the Zoning Administrator on October 7, 2024. The Zoning Administrator opened the hearing for public comments, no speakers were present. The Zoning Administrator approved the project with a modification to Condition of Approval #3 - Landscaping for Privacy Screening. On October 17, 2024, an appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s decision was submitted by Heman Patel and Aditi Shastri. The applicant decided to proceed with the project as proposed.
IV. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1) - Existing Facilities, additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than “50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.” The project is to build a rooftop deck above the existing living space and a new Juliet balcony.
V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a 5,110-square-foot parcel located within a single-family residential neighborhood in the Kensington area, at an elevation of approximately 730 feet. The subject property, along with the residences on the same side of Highland Blvd., are on a higher elevation. The high elevation and residence designs that accommodate the hilly terrain provide expansive views towards the San Francisco Bay, showcasing landmarks such as the San Francisco skyline, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Bay Bridge. Generally, the surrounding area consists of one-story, two-story, and some three-story houses. These homes range from 900 square feet to 6,000 square feet in gross floor area. Architectural styles in the neighborhood are diverse, including Minimal Traditional, Bungalow, Craftsman, Shingle, Mid-Century, and Contemporary.
Based on County records, the existing single-family residence was built in 1948, consisting of one level. In 1968, there was a Variance that approved at attached carport and a partial second-story addition approved in 1972. The second story has sliding doors facing the eastern boundary line which leads to an exposed roof area. The total existing gross floor area is 2,182 square feet.
VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a Development Plan for a Kensington Design Review to allow the addition of an approximately 568-square-foot rooftop deck above existing living space on the eastern portion of the existing residence and a new approximately 7-square-foot Juliet balcony on the southwestern portion of the existing residence. The rooftop deck will span from the front to the rear of the property east of the existing residence.
The existing residence is 2,182 square feet and the proposed project will increase the gross floor area by 7 feet for the covered Juliet balcony. The total gross floor area of 2,189 square feet, which is under maximum threshold of 2,600 square feet.
VII. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S OCTOBER 7, 2024 HEARING
During the appeal period following approval by the Zoning Administrator, one appeal was received from Heman Patel and Aditi Shastri. The concerns raised in the letter of the appeal, and staff’s responses, are summarized as follows:
1. Summary of Appeal Point #1: Inadequate width of privacy fence.
The lattice privacy fence that was recommended by the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMAC) is only 4 feet 8 inches in width, which is grossly inadequate and barely provides any privacy at all for the proposed deck that is approximately 27 feet wide.
Staff Response: The Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the project at their May 29, 2024, meeting. However, the minutes for the recommendation for approval did not include the condition that was agreed upon by the members and participants. The recommendation for approval was amended on the August 28, 2024, meeting to state the approval with the compromise of the construction of a trellis, an 8-foot by 4 feet 8-inches trellis, on the existing fence to protect the privacy of the neighboring property at 7 Arlington Avenue.
2. Summary of Appeal Point #2: Inadequate height of privacy fence:
During a meeting with the residents of 2 Highland Blvd., they placed an opaque plastic sheet that would more accurately reflect the coverage of the affected living areas. The residents of 2 Highland Blvd. did not want the screen to be as big, so they removed the plastic and left the smaller height poles. The poles gave the appearance of being a privacy fence, but it did not protect the privacy in any meaningful ways and provided full view of the various living areas that would be visible from the deck
Staff response: During the site visit to 2 Highland Blvd, conducted on August 29, 2024, Staff was shown the wooden poles on the fence for a visual representation of the area that will need to be covered to block the view from the subject property to the neighboring property at 7 Arlington Avenue. The exposed width of the space to cover the window view was approximately 5 feet wide and 8 feet tall. The other living area was not in consideration as the view was blocked by the existing maple tree.
After the site visit to 7 Arlington Avenue, conducted on November 1, 2024, the owners showed staff the opaque plastic sheet that was used as the experiment. They placed the opaque plastic sheet in the areas to be of high concern for privacy. The total height of the structure would be 73 inches (approximately 6 feet) above the existing fence.
3. Summary of Appeal Point #3: Inadequate screening by Maple Tree.
The maple tree on the subject property drops its leaves five months out of the year and further, it is not permanent, unalterable structure. The neighbor could trim or cut off branches at any time without consequence after the deck is built.
Staff response: During the site visit to 2 Highland Blvd., conducted on August 29, 2024, staff was able to walk through the roof area for the proposed rooftop deck. The view from the subject property to the residence located at 7 Arlington Avenue is partially blocked by an existing Maple tree. Even if the Maple tree sheds most of its leaves, there will be additional vegetation planted to provide privacy of views as part of the condition of approval.
4. Summary of Appeal Point #4: No privacy screening proposed for the Juliet balcony.
During the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMAC) meeting, the applicants indicated that they had dropped the Juliet balcony from the plans and thus no privacy screening was discussed or recommended by KMAC. The Community Development Department (CDD) staff recommendation also does not provide any privacy screening for the Juliet balcony that has a view of the son’s bedroom, guest bathroom, and the only bathroom in the house.
Staff Response: The proposed plans received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Department (CDD) on April 1, 2024, were the same plans that were routed to the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee. These plans included the Juliet balcony as part of the scope of work.
During the site visit to 7 Arlington Avenue, staff was granted access to enter the bedroom and guest bathroom. This allowed Staff to observe the view from the windows facing the direction of the proposed rooftop deck. The view from both windows is showcased in the “Site Visit Photos” in the attachments. As stated in the Condition of Approval #3, the applicant shall provide vegetative screening along the property line between the subject property and the property located at 7 Arlington Avenue. Staff will confirm that the landscape screening will cover the exposed view areas to protect the view from these vantage points.
5. Summary of Appeal Point #5: Easily alterable vegetation privacy screening.
The screening as proposed with trees can be easily altered at any time by the owners of 2 Highland Blvd. It may take years before it gets the required height. We request a more permanent solution be added as a condition for approval that can’t be so easily altered.
Staff Response: The applicant consulted with staff regarding the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMAC) recommendation for feasibility of including the trellis structure to the project plans. The recommendation to add a trellis structure to the existing fence will result in a variance component to the project that was not originally considered when the project was first submitted. After consideration, the applicant decided to find an alternative to the trellis. The applicant proposes vegetation along the southern property line. The recommendation for vegetation is included as a condition of approval to address the privacy concern that was raised by the neighboring property owners at 7 Arlington Avenue.
As such, the trees required for privacy screening will be code-protected under zoning code section 816-6.6004 (B) Any tree shown to be preserved on an approved tentative map, development or site plan or required to be retained as a condition of approval.
6. In addition to the appeal points, the appellants commented on the history of communication during this project. The appellants state that they did not receive the mailed notice for the Zoning Administrator hearing. They submitted a written appeal on February 20, 2024, and an email inquiry on June 18, 2024, and followed up on October 10, 2024, since there was no response.
Staff Response: The public hearing notice was mailed on September 18, 2024. The perjury notification list included the address 7 Arlington Avenue for Hemang Patel and Aditi Shastri. Additionally, on August 27, staff emailed Mr. Patel in response to their concern about the projects and requested to do a site visit. No response was received. Staff was forwarded an email by Mr. Patel on October 10, 2024. Staff responded to that email the same day. Mr. Patel shared that there were personal matters he needed to attend to during the time of the hearing and the email was sent to the spam folder and stated their intent to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision. On October 30, 2024, Staff emailed Mr. Patel to schedule a site visit. Staff conducted a site visit on November 1, 2024, and clarified any miscommunication on the matter.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The proposed development is consistent with the RM, Residential Medium Density General Plan Land Use designation, and substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the R-6 Zoning District. The project is also consistent with the -K and -TOV Combining Districts; therefore, as proposed, the subject improvements to an existing residence are an appropriate use for the subject site and its characteristics. Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approves County File #CDDP24-03011 based on the attached findings and conditions of approval.
Attachments:
A. Findings and Conditions of Approval
B. Appeal Letter on Zoning Administrator’s Decision
C. Maps - Parcel Maps, Aerial Map, Zoning Map, General Plan Map
D. Zoning Administrator Staff Report and Attachments
E. Project Plans
F. Site Visit Photographs
G. Power Point Presentation