TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

SUBJECT: 23 SUTTER COURT; FILE #20315

MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 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:

Upon a field inspection of the project, the Town’s Building Inspector noted that the fence at the rear of the property was constructed to a maximum height of 9’6", and a portion of the fence along the left side property line extended up to 8’6", instead of eight feet as approved by the Town (fence location "A" as shown on submitted site plan). The rest of the project was found to be in compliance with the approved plans. Instead of rebuilding the fence to comply with the provisions of the building permit, the applicant has elected to submit an additional variance application for the portions of the fence that exceed eight feet in height. The applicant is requesting a fence height variance of 3’6" (the fence is proposed to be 9’6" in lieu of the standard six feet).

Zoning

Except for the above mentioned variance requests for excess fence height and reduced side yard setback, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations of the R-1 zoning district.

Design Issues

Variance

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.

Fence Height Because of the significant elevation difference between the adjacent properties, a fence taller than six feet is necessary to create an acceptable level of privacy, and to create an adequate barrier for deer.

Reduced Side Yard The applicant has stated that because the property contains such a steep slope at the rear of the property, there is only limited space in which to locate a hot tub. This unusual characteristic of the property would necessitate locating the hot tub within the side yard.

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.

Fence Height The applicants have suggested that granting the variance would not constitute a special privilege because the new fence would be significantly shorter than the previous fence, which would benefit the adjacent neighbors.

Reduced Side Yard The applicant has stated that granting the variance would not be special privilege because some of the adjacent properties have structures right up to the applicant’s property line and in some cases on the applicant’s property.

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

Fence Height The applicant has stated that to rely on a six foot fence that is not effective in maintaining privacy or keeping deer out would be an unnecessary hardship.

Reduced Side Yard The applicant has stated that having to install a hot tub in compliance with the Ordinance would be an unnecessary hardship because it would significantly reduce the flat and usable area of the rear yard.

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

As proposed, the proposed variances would not appear to have an 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 for excess fence height and reduced side yard setback, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.

EXHIBITS:

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 dated by the Town of Tiburon on June 17, 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.