18 Cibrian Drive Staff Report

To:	PLANNING COMMISSION
From:	EMI THERIAULT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
Subject:	FILE #30103: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO HEXAN PRECISE PLAN (P.D.#1) TO ESTABLISH A FENCING ONLY BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR LOT 4; 18 CIBRIAN DRIVE; Randall and Sandra Huyser, owners and applicants; Assessor=s Parcel No. 38-011-42
Report Date:	SEPTEMBER 5, 2001

The Town Council approved a Precise Plan for the Hexan Subdivision in 1983. Only primary building envelopes for the 7 lots were approved at that time. In 1985, the Precise Plan was amended to create secondary building envelopes for each of the lots. On July 18, 1996, the Design Review Board approved the applicants’ design for a new single family residence. The home was subsequently built and occupied. Now that the applicants have occupied the home for some years, they would like to install a pool and associated structures. The applicants applied for and received staff level design review approval for the pool and a terrace in May 2000. At that time, Staff denied associated requests for trellises and a pool enclosure fence due to their potential for view blockage.

The applicants are now proposing a "fencing only" envelope expansion for the property that would enable them to construct a pool enclosure fence in the rear yard area outside of the existing secondary building envelope. The proposed fencing envelope would be set back from the street a minimum of 85 feet, would run along the west property line for 145 feet, continue eastward in a curve through the backyard, stop 10 feet short of the east property line then switch back toward the west ending at the easternmost tip of the existing residence. (Exhibit 4).

The applicants have submitted a fence design intended to serve dual purposes of "pool enclosure" "deer barrier". Sheet A1.1 of the plans illustrates the design for a 6 foot high wood post and wire mesh fence intended to prevent deer and rabbit access to the improved yard of lot. (Exhibit 5).

Most of the fence would be well set back from property lines and would serve an appropriate purpose by providing pool enclosure and deer fencing without blocking neighbors’ views to the north or substantially reducing the sense of openness designed into the subdivision’s envelope scheme. The portion of the proposed fence that would run along the western property line is contrary to the original design intentions for the subdivision, however. Condition 2j of the approved Hexan Master Plan specifically prohibits property line fencing or even plantings on property lines which would have the appearance of fence-like hedges. The Plan further prohibits fences of rectilinear design which would form obvious structural demarcations that would serve to diminish the subdivision’s visually open areas created, in part, by the established building envelopes. These limitations combined with the fact that neighbors to the west have expressed concerns over potential view blockage, leads Staff to recommend a minimum 10 foot setback from the west property line for any fencing and a more curvilinear fence line in that area (see Exhibit 6).

A portion of the fence would cross an easement held by Pacific Bell, which has submitted a letter indicating their approval of the proposal. (Exhibit 2).

The proposed amendment would not change the residential use of the property and is consistent with General Plan policies. As modified by this report, the "fencing only" envelope would be consistent with the zoning for the property.

This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 of the Guidelines.

With the modifications previously mentioned, the establishment of a "fencing only" building envelope should not have a significant view impact. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item and adopt the draft resolution recommending approval of the amendment to the Town Council, subject to the conditions contained therein. If the Commission determines that the application should be denied, the denial would be final unless appealed to the Town Council. Should the Commission vote to deny, it should direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution at the next meeting.